NY Climate Conference: Journey to the Center of Warming Sanity
By Marc Sheppard, The American Thinker [here]
If you rely solely on the mainstream media to keep informed, you may not have heard that the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change concluded in New York City on Tuesday. And if you have heard anything — this being primarily a forum of skeptics — it was likely of a last gasp effort by “flat-Earthers” sponsored by right-wingers in the pockets of big-oil to breathe life into their dying warming denial agenda. Well, having just returned from the 3 day event, I’m happy to report that the struggle against the ravages of warming alarmism is not only alive, but healthier than ever.
Granting a long overdue forum to noted dissenting scientists, economists and policy experts from around the world, the Heartland Institute-sponsored symposium at the Marriott Marquis offered welcomed reasoned analysis as alternative to last December’s hysterical circus which was Bali. It also served as the perfect launch point for a long-awaited un-IPCC report — Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change [here].
Compiling the work of over 20 prominent fellow researchers, editor Fred Singer’s NIPCC report distinguishes itself from the recent IPCC Fourth Assessment (AR4) and its predecessors in that it was not pre-programmed to “support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming (AGW) and the control of greenhouse gases.” Instead, the nearly 50 page document is a non-political authoritative rebuttal to the multi-government controlled IPCC’s “errors and outright falsehoods” regarding warming’s measurement, likely drivers, and overall impact.
And its ultimate conclusion of “natural causes and a moderate warming trend with beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife” set the perfect framework for speakers and panelists - many of whom contributed to the NIPCC — to elaborate on the summit’s “Global warming is not a crisis” theme. … [more]
by Elizabeth Hart
May I respectfully disagree?
Re the “alarmist” appellation: the climate debate was declared over by political types. Those who disagreed with the UN conclusions were (are) labeled “deniers” in reference to Holocaust deniers. Vast Draconian “solutions” have been subsequently adopted worldwide, with more to come.
Yet the debate is not over. Numerous scientists, including over 100 top experts who attended the NY Climate Conference, make the claim that recent global warming is minor, natural (not human caused), largely over, and a good thing (warmer is better).
Those points of view are roundly excoriated by the worldwide Media. Those of us who hold those views feel very marginalized and deeply insulted by the alarmists’ lack of open mindedness. Friends of mine have lost their jobs for holding “contrarian views” on this issue, by purely political witch-hunting.
The “solutions” offered have driven up the prices of energy and food. Great suffering has resulted in the poorer countries of the world. None of the “solutions” will affect the Earth’s temperature one iota, but the suffering is now and it is real.
Those who would starve the poor are indeed heartless. Those who would impose a new world order regardless of the pain they inflict are indeed authoritarian and totalitarian. Megalomania has not miraculously disappeared. It is alive and expanding on this planet.
It is a common thing to blame one’s fellow man for “problems” real and imaginary. That is the thread that has run through totalitarian movements throughout history, with horrendous repercussions. Blame Humanity is popular these days, just as it was in fascist dictatorships prior to World War II. “Too many people” is an old and deeply corrupt philosophy!
The corollaries to that philosophy are profoundly anti-human, racist, and evil. It the philosophy that created Auschwitz.
Some of us believe that people are good, and that everyone deserves a decent chance at life free of disease, starvation, war, slavery, poverty, and sundry other inflicted agonies. I believe in people. I do not hate the human race. I do not blame overpopulation for the world’s miseries. Population growth has stopped in most advanced countries anyway. Wealth brings family stability. Wealth creation and distribution are better solutions than genocide.
As to deforestation, it seems to have been forgotten that humanity has been widespread since the beginning of the Holocene, and that people everywhere have been impacting their landscapes with anthropogenic fire for millennia. Much of what is considered an ancient, untouched wilderness in Amazonia has in fact been home to people who have been profoundly altering it for ten thousand years. Ditto every continent (save Antarctica), except for much longer.
Modern deforestation is quite benign these days, compared to the past. In fact, the absence of human tending has given rise to terrible fire hazards in North and South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Modern urbanites who fail to understand the past often expect and demand “wildlands” and “abandonment to nature” in places where humanity has been tending the land for uncounted generations. Modern day megafires are the all too common result of dehumanization.
People belong in nature, upon the landscape, in the forests, in the bush, and everywhere. We are the Caretakers. Suffering and disaster result when we abandon our birthright and birth-responsibilities.
If there is to be a worldwide movement to Save the Planet, the guiding philosophy should be that humans are good, humans are beneficial to the planet, humans function best with guaranteed and protected human rights, and that human stewardship is desirable in all landscapes.
That is a pro-human agenda. It is diametrically opposed the anti-human agenda, which holds that humans are bad, are destroying the planet, need to have our human rights taken away, and that the absence of human stewardship is most desirable.
So you see, the words of Vaclav Klaus resonate with pro-human adherents. He is speaking our truths.
From my perspective, it appears we pro-human folks are a tiny minority. There is no seat at the Big Table for us. The debate about “sustainability” and the 2012 Climate Change Agreement has excluded the pro-human faction, and excluded compassion as well as rationality. Whatever “agreements” are agreed upon by “world leaders” and the “authorities”, they will exclude the most negatively impacted souls. You can be sure of that.
And you can be sure that freedom will not die, despite the ever-present, ever-growing specter of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. That darkness will not kill the human heart, though it may very well kill hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of innocent people. That is, if history is to be repeated, and it seems that it often is.
During the recent climate conference, Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president, argued that “climate alarmists” want to stop economic growth, block the rise in the standard of living and stop population growth. In his view, “climate alarmists” are “totalitarian” and “megalomaniacal”. I beg to differ. People concerned about climate change are many and varied and do not necessarily fit this extreme stereotype. We’re not all “climate alarmists”. Some of us claim to be “climate rationalists”.
Surely it is only common sense to consider the environmental impact of our growing human population? The current global population of 6.6 billion has grown over 3 billion since 1960, and is tipped to grow to over 9 billion by 2042. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist, let alone a “climate alarmist”, to appreciate this continued human population growth might have a detrimental effect on the environment and growing global emissions.
Dr Klaus is an economist. Other economists, such as Sir Nicholas Stern, argue we should address the problem of global deforestation to curb global emissions. Yet every day forests and associated bio-diversity in South-East Asia and South America are destroyed to cater for the demands of our growing population.
In our quest for a fair, effective and sustainable post-2012 climate change agreement, surely we should be allowed to have a rational and considered debate on the environmental impact of our growing global human population?