Last spring I interviewed Dr. Louis Uccellini, the head of the National Weather Service. He informed me that, based on weather models, it was likely to be the worst hurricane season on record. The probability for strong storms was great.
Haiyan has proved him tragically correct.
Today, a leaked report by an international panel of scientists that details the risks to the world's economy, as well as the global food and water supply, is making its way around the Internet. The findings showcase a wide range of climate change impacts that add up to a planet in peril.
Will those findings be proved tragically correct? It's likely. And this is why climate change deniers are such fools.
Climate change deniers would have us believe that the spike in carbon emissions is unrelated to the spike in extreme weather events globally. (On average, the storms that had been occurring every 100 years are now happening every three years.) Deniers would also de-link climate change and extreme weather events-- which is asinine; climate is by definition the culmination of weather events over time.
The World Meteorological Organization announced last week that the rise in greenhouse gases accelerated to an all-time high in 2012, and that carbon emissions were responsible for 80 percent of the jump.
We should look at Haiyan as a dire warning of things to come, not as an anomaly. We should be doing everything within our power to stop further climate catastrophes. And we should damn well stop denying that the climate is changing before our eyes.
Why Climate Deniers Are Fools
November 15, 2013
« Previous Article
| Next Article »
Login in order to post a comment
Comments
-
Come on Tom, reply to the posters. Oh, I get it, you are too busy reading *Rules for Radicals* by Saul Alinsky to be bothered with the truth. Tell VinWeber and GeorgeSoros we're on to them.
-
If we can be called "fools" for being skeptical of these charlatans, we can call such cheerleaders for this redistribution movement what they are; sheep. In 1970, Dr. Ehrlich, (THE father of today's "climate change" mantra), along with a bunch of his fellow peddlers, made a few predictions at the first "Earth Day". The predictions included that only 1/2 of the sun light would reach the earth by 1985, civilization would end within 15-30 years, oil would be completely depleted by 2000, 1/2 of the earth's population would starve by 1975, by 2000 the entire planet would be in mass famine, and the best part; "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." Uh huh. And of course, the way to fix all of this, (as Obama's first Enviro Czar Carol Browner stated), is to redistribute our wealth via higher taxes, become socialist, (as she is), and stop producing energy...all while her and her fellow hypocrites like Al Gore the rest of the cause celebs enrich themselves and consume 20X that of the average American. Go peddle your wares somewhere else...we "fools" aren't interested in what you are selling, pal.
-
oops. sorry. anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.
-
Utter hogwash. Using individual weather events to attempt to prove climate change, much less to tie climate change to an increase in carbon dioxide, is sophomoric. I searched for the initial Kostigen/Uccellini interview without success. I suspect, with the use of the word "hurricane", that the focus was on the Atlantic. How many big hurricanes in the Atlantic this year? Answer: ZERO, despite predictions of an active season with several major storms. If my suspicion is correct, this piece is not only amateurish, it is downright dishonest. Even if my suspicion is not correct, the premise of the article still is flawed. One typhoon, or any single weather event, is not proof of anthropomorphic climate change. The basic objection of many who require further evidence is that the models upon which the dire climate change warnings are based are flawed. The models cannot account for the current climate and the lack of warming over the last decade. The matter is not settled science. Many reputable scientists disagree with the position advanced by the IPCC. See http://www.nipccreport.org/ for a different perspective. I, personally, have not reached a conclusion about climate change, but I have concluded that those who wish to stifle scientific debate and who resort to hysteria and hyperbole appear to have something to hide.