The Truth About Denial
Vol: 71 Issue: 23 Thursday, August 23, 2007
That is what Newsweek promised last week in its cover story. Under the headline, “The Truth About Denial” it promised to tell the truth about what it calls “global warming deniers.”
Even the label is loaded — the phrase ‘global warming deniers’ has the same flavor as the phrase, “Holocaust deniers” — it conjures up images of far-right extremists who refuse, for their own nefarious purposes, to acknowledge the evidence of massive human tragedy right before their eyes.
Given the overwhelming evidence attesting to the Holocaust,Holocaust deniers are almost religiously blind; it wouldn’t matter if they had been eyewitnesses to Auschwitz, they would still deny that Germany systematically set out to destroy the Jewish race.
That is the reason for the label, ‘global warming deniers — it carries with it the sense of blind defiance on an almost mystical level. How could anybody deny something when, to quote Senator Barbara Boxer, the evidence is “unequivocal.”
In fact, the evidence is almost childishly simple.
In Newsweek’s April, 1975 issue, the magazine was predicting the onset of another Ice Age. Citing “ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically,” the magazine warned of an impending “drastic decline in food production.”
Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect “just about every nation on earth.” Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of global cooling.
To be fair, it wasn’t just Newsweek that was predicting we’d all be living in igloos by 2007. TIME Magazine also ran a 1975 cover story predicting the onset of a new Ice Age.
But that was 1975. This time, they are not only absolutely certain that they are right, but any disagreement with their assessments is nothing short of scientific heresy. This time, the evidence is unequivocal!
Ahem. The evidence was ‘unequivocal’ the last time, too.
Last time, they argued that it would take only a tiny tilt of the Earth’s rotation to plunge it into a deep freeze.
Both magazines sought out the most respectable scientists to underscore their point that the earth was about to freeze to death in another Ice Age. Among their principle sources was Isaac Asimov, the science fiction writer.
Defending its failed 1975 prediction, Newsweek says this week, “Some scientists indeed thought the Earth might be cooling in the 1970s, and some laymen even one as sophisticated and well-educated as Isaac Asimov saw potentially dire implications for climate and food production.”
Hold everything! Isn’t that what they are saying now, only in reverse? In 1975, all our crops were gonna freeze, causing a worldwide food shortage. In 2007, all our crops are gonna burn up, causing a worldwide food shortage.
In 1975, the scientists and laymen who thought the Earth was entering a new Ice Age did so based on the climate record of the preceding three decades.
Thirty years later, the “settled” science uses the climate record of the preceding three centuries, and therefore, (based on the climate record of preceding three decades,) the earth is undergoing catastrophic global warming.
Since the science is “settled” the recent revelation that the data used was flawed is “irrelevant.” (As noted, this time they’re positively positive they aren’t as wrong as they were in 1975).
A Canadian amateur climatologist, Steve McIntyre, dissected their data and found an uncorrected Y2K bug that changed the hottest year in history from 1998, supporting global warming, to 1934, supporting, er, common sense.
The corrected figures show that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the US occurred during the 1930s. Rather than thanking McIntyre for pointing out an error in their calculations, NASA dismissed the error as “inconsequential” to their conclusion.
NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt told the LA Times; “The data adjustment changes ‘the inconsequential bragging rights for certain years in the U.S.,’ he said. “But ‘global warming is a global issue, and the global numbers show that there is no question that the last five to 10 years have been the hottest period of the last century.’ “
(“You see? the science is ‘settled’. Therefore, the data error is inconsequential, since we were half right! Now, don’t interrupt! The March Hare is about to recite a poem!”)
The Bible defines ‘faith’ this way: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)
Global warming isn’t a science. It’s a religion.
The religion of global warming is rooted in “settled” science that is actually based in the observations of the last thirty years, rather than the last three hundred.
Until global warming became a religion, it was a matter of scientific fact that until 1900, the world had been going through a three hundred year long cold ‘snap’ dubbed “The Little Ice Age.”
It was also a matter of scientific fact that the “Little Ice Age” was measured against its predecessor, the “Medieval Warming Period” that occurred between 1000 AD and the mid-14th century.
Since the Little Ice Age only ended about 100 years ago, without the Medieval Warming Period to compare it to, we wouldn’t KNOW it was the “Little Ice Age.” It would be the ‘historical average temperature’.
It isn’t as warm now as it was during the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). Greenland is still 84% ice. When it was discovered and settled by the Vikings during the MWP, it was called “Greenland” because it was green and habitable. Then it got cold during the Little Ice Age and they left. (I learned this in 7th grade.)
So, it was warm for four hundred years. Then it got cold for three hundred more. Then, in 1900, after being cold for three hundred years, it started to warm so rapidly that, by the 1930’s, the heat and drought caused massive crop failures.
Five of the ten hottest years on record were during this period.
Then, in 1940, another cold ‘snap’ settled in — the one most of us grew up in. That was the cold snap that, by 1975, had Newsweek and TIME convinced that we were on the road to another Ice Age.
Today, Newsweek is utterly confident that, based on the “settled science” we are on the road to catastrophic global warming, flawed data and climate history notwithstanding. The “settled science” upon which this is based is the same science used to predict tomorrow’s weather.
Most major cities have three local stations. Most local stations have local weather forecasts. All use the same ‘settled’ science. Every day, all three give slightly different forecasts. Rain, high of 76 . . . or is it a chance of rain and 72? Then the third guy splits the difference and forecasts 74 and partly sunny.
Go to the three five-day forecasts and one would think each forecast was for a different part of the country.
That is the ‘settled science’ they started with. State of the art, 21st century weather forecasting equipment and technology — like that used by your three local weather forecasters.
Then, it turns out that the data they input into this state of the art, 21st century weather forecasting equipment and technology that forecasts three alternative scenarios each day, was flawed. No matter. The science is “settled”. Anybody who says otherwise is immediately branded a “heretic.”
The faith in global warming goes beyond science and into the realm of religion.
“Heretic” is a religious term. It’s classic meaning is “person who has expressed formal denial or doubt of any defined doctrine of the church.” I typed the word “heretic” into Google’s news search engine.
The first hit I got was the headline: “A Conversation with an Energy Heretic.”
There have been all kinds of candidates for the religion of the antichrist and environmentalism certainly deserves consideration. Al Gore uses ten times the energy of the average family, travels in private jets, limos and SUV’s and claims to live a ‘carbon-neutral’ lifestyle — and his followers accept it without question.
I don’t think it is THE religion of antichrist, but it will certainly find a home there.
Among the signs of the last days, according to Jesus Christ, would be, “signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring. Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.” (Luke 21:25-26)”
Global warming ‘heretics’ note that recent and unprecedented solar eruptions are the best explanation for the recent warming spell. They note that similar warming is occurring on Mars, which has no atmosphere to pollute nor people to pollute it.
But whole nations are distressed and perplexed about the threat of catastrophic global warming because it is warmer now than it was thirty-five years ago when we were anticipating a new Ice Age.
Al Gore warns the sea will reclaim most of the world’s coastlines within fifty years. His “Inconvenient Truth” slide show actually contains images of ‘the sea and the waves roaring’.
It is the “powers of heaven” — the extremes of wind, rain, heat, cold, that is behind the fear, and the global warming predictions are nothing less than that they will be ‘shaken’ by catastrophic global warming.
Is global warming real? I don’t know, but I seriously doubt it. What the Bible actually predicts is fear of the perception of something like global warming, not the actual event itself.
It is that perception, and its attending fear that points to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. If we aren’t worrying about global warming, we are spending billions looking for the Next Killer Asteroid.
The same passage in Luke also predicts, “And when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)