Against global warming fanaticism

| Staff Columnist

The enviro-fascists among us have cause for alarm. In recent media, story after story has been released about how global warming alarmists have exaggerated their claims, manipulated data, conspired to hide their methods from critical scientists and personally profited from their radical claims. The result: The American public now takes the idea that we face an imminent threat from rising global temperatures as seriously as the 2012 Mayan Calendar predictions of world annihilation, and the environmentalists have only themselves to blame.

Since its inception, global warming fanaticism has had nothing to offer the world but lower economic growth, guilt trips, alarmism, regulations and infringements on personal liberties. It is now clear that the carbon-regulated world desired by green advocates will never be a reality, and that their efforts to force their carbon-friendly environmental practices down the throats of the Washington University community are an utter waste of time and resources.

The real wake-up call for most Americans was the release of the Climategate e-mails. These e-mails, obtained by enterprising young hackers, showed scientists lamenting their inability to account for periods which lacked warming and conspiring to keep data out of the hands of skeptics. This sort of conniving is bad enough for the PR of the global warming movement, but things get worse when it has been shown that supporters of the movement have been propagating outright falsities.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN’s panel on climate change, has recently been caught verifying several wild exaggerations. First, the IPCC made the claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, causing major ecological crises in the region. Next, the panel stated that up to 40 percent of the rainforests were in jeopardy due to increasing temperatures. Neither of these claims ended up being the product of peer-reviewed science research, but rather, of off-hand comments made in environmentalist magazines. Nonetheless, these propaganda pieces were allowed to have major effects on the public policy debate.

[poll id="28"]

Furthermore, a series of inconvenient conflicts of interest have been revealed throughout the global warming alarmist community. Recent allegations have arisen that Dr. Rejendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, has held paid positions on various committees of financial institutions. While he claims that he donates all proceeds to his personal charity foundation, the lack of a conflict-of-interest policy for the IPCC panel leaves many wondering whose interests Dr. Pachauri is representing. Meanwhile, our friend Al Gore, owner of a private jet and one of the largest energy consumers in the state of Tennessee, has made millions from his global warming activism and from his personal carbon-credit company which he pushes as a solution to climate change. Right here in Missouri, the recipient of very lucrative tax credits to promote wind energy is none other than Tom Carnahan, brother of Congressman Russ and Secretary of State Robin. Major global warming and alternative energy advocates have been consistently proven to be interested in more than “cleaner” energy.

Whatever faith people had in climate change activists has long since evaporated. Yet, the goals of the fervent environmentalists never really had a chance of becoming law to begin with. As the Kyoto and Copenhagen climate summits demonstrate, it turns out that China and India are uninterested in sacrificing the sort of economic growth we have enjoyed in the United States in exchange for a vague promise of a potentially cooler climate in the distant future of generations not yet conceived. We can learn from the utter failure of the Cap and Tax Scheme in Congress that most Americans, already struggling with high energy costs, are unmoved by arguments stating that we need to be the first to sacrifice our lifestyle in an effort to reduce the world’s temperatures.

The possibility for global climate change legislation, if there ever was such a possibility, should be considered an idea as dead as the phlogistic theory of fire. So you can give us back our bottled water, cut out the local food fetish, take the propaganda off the garbage cans and let me wash my hands without being lectured about sustainability. These small changes come only from a desire to annoy and control other individuals, not from any sincere belief that they will have the slightest effect on the future of our global climate. I have no desire to partake in the religious conviction that we all must do a little part to change the climate regardless of the realities of global politics. Yet, I do understand others’ desire to participate in what they consider to be a moral obligation. Might I recommend you start by recycling the Obama stickers you all have on your cars? You probably won’t be needing those again anyways.

Phil is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at pchristofanelli@hotmail.com.

  • Philip Christofanelli

    Tom,

    I do, infact believe that environmentalism at Washu is pointless, while still believing that man-made global warming is a likely reality. Washu’s environmental efforts will have no realistic effect on future global temperatures. Now you might say “Well if everyone did their part, that wouldn’t be the case.” But everyone is not going to do their part for many of the reasons which I suggested in the article.

    While it is nice that you have this idealistic view of the world where your efforts to make my life at Washu inconvenient will some how changes the realities of global politics, that simply is not realistic at all. The benefits do not outweigh the costs of Washu’s minor efforts because there are no benefits once your utopian views are left aside. China and India are not going to wake up one morning and decide to sacrifice their economic growth because a bunch of wealthy hippies in the central United States have given up their water bottles.

    But let’s be honest, environmentalists simply don’t believe that setting an example will inspire others to change. If you did believe that, you would see no need to ban water bottles. Everyone would see how right and moral you all are and would accordingly sacrifice water bottles themselves. How am I supposed to take seriously the idea that you all believe washu’s example matters on a global political level when you don’t even seem to believe that setting an example on a personal level is effective enough?

    -Phil

  • Tom

    Hey Phil,

    I was glad to see you had read my response, and I am glad to hear you read the emails and papers. I was suprised to see that since its over a thousand emails and three thousand documents, sorry for asuming you didn’t have that type of time.

    While I was happy to see your response, it did raise a couple of questions, but I will try to explain myself regarding your question – “Could you please refer me to the part of my article where I proclaim climate change to be a hoax”. From your conclusion, where you stated “So you can give us back our bottled water, cut out the local food fetish, take the propaganda off the garbage cans and let me wash my hands without being lectured about sustainability.” I felt as though you were stating that environmental activism serves no point. I suppose that I interpretted that as meaning you also do not believe in global warming, since the two appear highly connected. I definitely read your article prior to responding, but it sounds as though I have misinterpretted your own opinion.
    Also, the point of my immediate response was frustration that, as you pointed out, “lack of confidence will make global climate change legislation an impossibility”, and while that may be the case, I disagree that “efforts to force their carbon-friendly environmental practices down the throats of the Washington University community are an utter waste of time and resources”. It should be the responsibility of future advocates of climate change (like those here at Wash U) to restore the lost credibility and maybe even restore the possibility of legislation.
    (I certainly disagree with you regarding corporate intentions, but that is much more of a personal opinion than anything else, and probably is not all that pertinent)
    I hope to hear from you again.

    -Tom

  • Philip Christofanelli

    Dear Tom,
    Could you please refer me to the part of my article where I proclaim climate change to be a hoax and suggest that CO2 has no effect on the environment or global temperatures? In your undoubtably thorough reading of the article, you must have stumbled upon a section which I overlooked in writing it.

    In response to your thoughts about corporations, I would say that corporations are much more honest about their intentions. Green advocates, on the otherhand, have a habit of insisting that their motives are altruistic.

    You seem pretty certain in assuming that I have not read the Climategate emails. Considering that they are all online, I actually found accessing them to be quite easy. If you read the emails, which you admittedly have not, you would clealy see “scientists lamenting their inability to account for periods which lacked warming and conspiring to keep data out of the hands of skeptics” (which is all I really said about the emails in the article, as they were not the focus).

    For those of you who struggle with reading comprehension, allow me to remake the main point of the article: Public confidence in the veracity of claims made by global warming advocates has been steadily dwindling due to the poor conduct and political incompetance of environmentalists. This lack of confidence will make global climate change legislation an impossibility. At no point did I attempt to debunk man-made global warming, as I am completely unqualified to write such an article.

    Perhaps instead of asking me to do more research you should actually read the article before making baseless and ignorant anonymous posts online.

    -Phil

  • Tom

    I’m sorry Phil, but I cannot take any of your article seriously. While I can’t pass complete judgment of the emails since I have not read the entirety of their contents, I do not believe you have that right either. I’m not sure what sources you are using, but maybe next time check a fair source like http://www.factcheck.org.
    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
    You are arguing that climate change is a hoax because the scientific data is not perfect, but could you show me data that proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will not increase the net warming effect of the atmosphere?
    Also, you state in your argument that money is one of the driving force for advocates of climate change. So corporations that make billions of dollars at the expense of the environment, and who are constantly lobbying to keep real climate change action from happening are okay because….?
    Please try to do some more thorough research next time you write an article, rather than spew out an overblown conclusion based on a set of documents you have never personally seen.

  • Truth

    Gary I have to point out the glaring inadequacies with your comment. I believe many those scientists your turned up in a google search (which does not constitute scholarly research) are members of the Heartland Institute, a foundation that was funded by Exxon until recently. If you look at that list of 30,000 scientists, how many are actually climatologists? The list you quote is filled with individuals that have no expertise related to climatology. That number has no bearing on the actual state of climate science.
    My question for Phil is simply this: We know very well that carbon dioxide captures solar radiation. If it didn’t then our planet would be freezing. So then why isn’t this enhanced CO2, on your view, increasing our global temperature? What is preventing this enhanced CO2 from warming our planet? Actually the past decade was the warmest on record and there has been a steady warming trend. The CRU email case has been debunked as showing no falsity towards the scientific theory of climate change and your points against the IPCC don’t hold up. Darwin advocated a blending inheritance of traits, but that doesn’t mean we throw out his theory of natural selection. Some parts of the IPCC report were wrong, I will grant you that. But that has no bearing on the simple fact that our planet is warming and we are causing it. Your article proposed no refutation of this.

  • Matthias

    Thanks for your article, Phil. Keep up the passion for embracing truth and doing something meaningful about it.

    As for the person who was too cowardly to put their own name on their response(i.e. “believes in science”): Please do your research before you make comments that reveal your utter ignorance.

  • http://N/A Charles

    This statement is completely false: “Next, the panel stated that up to 40 percent of the rainforests were in jeopardy due to increasing temperatures.” The report should not have cited a report from WWF but the scientific data behind the claim is 100% accurate. The journalist who started “Amazongate” has since been exposed for serious mistakes in his column as well as breaches of journalistic protocol.

    Further if anyone bothers to look at the list of “30,000 scientists” who don’t believe in climate change, you’ll quickly see that the majority of those who have signed the petition are not scientists but MDs, DDSs, and BSs.

  • Gary

    Mr Christofanelli, your statements ring true. One of the response comments included, “all the scientists in the world” are predicting environmental disaster. Reasonable people and even a good number of those that drank the “cool aid” know not all scientists claim global temperature change is caused by man (at least 30,000 have testified skepticism per google search). It is a kind world that looks after the less fortunate countries but institutionalizing transfer of wealth, aside from being wrong, is no guarantee of any benefit except to despotic tyrants and bureaucrats and the UN. Or, is that all one in the same?

  • believes in science

    This article is outrageous!!!

    LAUGHABLE, really

    You can’t actually believe all this nonsense:
    “These small changes come only from a desire to annoy and control other individuals, not from any sincere belief that they will have the slightest effect on the future of our global climate.”
    Is this why all the scientists in the world are warning us about impending disaster? Oh well thanks for clarifying. I thought scientists were professionals that went through years of schooling to better our world, but I’m glad your expert opinion can spread the truth.

    Mr. Christofanelli, do you also believe the world is flat?

  • Clif C

    I like the way you put it: “exaggerated their claims, manipulated data, conspired to hide their methods from critical scientists and personally profited from their radical claims.”

    Reminds me of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and The PTL Club. Go google “believe in” “global warming” and you get over two and half milliion hits. Sure looks like a cult.