Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Bjorn Lomberg's 'Cool It' – a true believer takes on the Eco-Cult
A gay, European, Eco-Cult skeptic
by StFerdIII
Once a skeptic, Lomberg is now of course a true-believer in Globaloney Warming – with a caveat. He does not think that governmental programs of any shape and size will do anything to reduce C02 emissions, moderate temperatures, or cure Mother Earth's raging fever [poor dear]. This is the main and truly only reason why this book is interesting. Lomberg lays out in great detail, why all the grand plans of the UN and the chattering Marxists would cost trillions in GDP and accomplish precisely nothing. Though many premises of his book are wrong, who can argue with a gay European eco-cult member? At least he has the courage to say that eco-action now! is just another Marxist nightmare.
Lomberg's book has some simple premises, some of which are excellent: globlal warming alarmism is deceitful and politically motivated; an increase in temperature would reduce overall deaths and help agricultural output; the human race needs simple, functional solutions to help the environment, not grandiose plans that waste money; the costs of Kyoto and other quixotic plans would be better used elsewhere to alleviate real suffering; and that the ultimate goal of the eco-cult should be to improve human life and the environment – not erect massive schemes of governmental incompetence and waste. These and other attributes make the book a good primer for those who want to counter eco-hysteria [more on these below].
So far so good. But there are two other premises which are more controversial which should also be pointed out.
First Lomborg states categorically and repeatedly that man-made global warming is real – but he never defends the charge. He provides no data, statistics, empirical proof, or common sense analysis how a natural gas, like C02, would cause global warming and why humans are responsible for such, if it indeed is occuring. Many scientists and studies, including satellite temperature readings, dispute the case that the earth is warming at anything above historical norms. Satellite readings by John Christie at the Univ. Of Alabama reveal a 0.2-0.5C rise in average mean temperature in the past 30 years – statistically insignificant. Some areas might be warming, others like Lomberg points out, are actually cooling. So the premise that there is man-made global warming is entirely suspect.
Lomberg does not tell the reader that 96% of C02 emissions are from the natural biomass. How then can human activity accounting for a measly 4%, change the climate? He ignores the fact that from 1940-1975 temperatures went down, even as C02 went up. How to explain that anomaly? In fact since 1998 average mean temperatures have been decreasing in many parts of the world, not increasing. Other facts like the ending of the last ice age; the far warmer climate of 1000 years ago, the cooling of the little ice age between 1450 and 1750, the impact of volcanic eruptions and solar activity on the climate, these and other major issues are not discussed.
Lomborg admits that parts of the world are getting colder, stating rather oddly that this is due to global warming. How can warming cause cooling? There is no scientific rationale to backup up the mythical and hoary claim that C02 causes all manner of temperature fluctuation. There are one million variables in climatology, surely some other variants are responsible in part or in whole for weather and climate patterns. Or is the entire planet resting on the slender nuances of one particular natural gas? Doubtful.
Man-made global warming as a premise must be defended, not just stated.
The second problem with the book is the ridiculous notion of instituting a C02 tax. I can think of nothing more assinine than allowing politicians the power of further taxation – to save Mother Earth. A C02 tax would have enormous and deleterious consequences. It would be in essence of course, a general tax on everything. All products and most services consume energy. Such a tax would have to cover every single industrial and residential process that uses energy. Clothing, food, all products, and all consumption of any item for any purpose would be sur-taxed. Where would this money go? Into the greedy vaults of 'general revenue'. As they do with sundry eco and gas taxes today, most of this money would flow into the general revenue line – to be used to expand the mommy-state and buy votes. None or very little would be used to cure poor Mother Earth's fever.
The carbon tax's stated purpose – to reduce those nasty, terrible C02 emissions of which the human race is responsible for 4% of the total – would of course fail as well. As with any tax all that would happen is that wages would fall, some jobs would be lost and higher consumer prices would ensue. China, India and Latin America would ignore the industrial world's claim that there must be a global carbon tax. They will happily become even more competitive as our costs increase. Why should their societies suffer because of some cult-fetish which exists in Europe and along the US coasts? Emissions would still climb not decline.
A carbon tax is nothing more than a consumption tax – a VAT or a retail sales tax. How taxing already over-taxed consumers to save Mother Earth, and reduce C02 is truly beyond the ken of the sentient. People will still eat, wear clothes, and yes drive to work. All that will happen is that society will get poorer, incomes will become constrained, jobs will be lost, and government will expand. The developing world will benefit. The industrialised world will go into recession.
Yippee.
If Lomberg left it there, the book would be a disaster. He does however redeem himself. If you can fight through the above two premises, there is lots of good information one can use to counter the eco-marxist scam. Lomberg goes through all the eco-myths and politely destroys them.
-An increase in mean temperature will save lives [about 150.000 people die each year in Europe from cold temperatures]
-Kyoto will cost $180 billion per annum and reduce total temperatures by about 7 days by the year 2100
-Average total costs of Kyoto would be about 2% of GDP for industrialised countries
-Glaciers are advancing not shrinking
-Al Gore's 20 foot sea level rise is scientifically impossible. Such a rise would take 1000 years after both Greenland and Antartica both had melted.
-Greenland and Antartica are expanding, not contracting in size
-The polar bear population has surged from 5.000 50 years ago, to 25.000 today.
-The warmest year on record for Greenland is still 1941
-A warming climate would actually increase ice mass [a warming climate increases precipitation which of course increases snow and ice creation as it falls into cold climes]
-Hurricanes are less active now than in the 1930s and 1940s
The earth is not collapsing and we are not being cooked in a human created microwave.
These and other facts make it clear that Globaloney Warming is a political initiative. From the Euro-perspective it is clear to me that Kyoto and the musings of a massive carbon tax are a directive to minimize the US cost advantage in energy. By so doing the Europeans believe they will derange US industry and perforce become more competitive. As Lomberg states, 'Climate policy is here used as a tool and justification for charting an alternative course of development that is seen by some as preferable' [p. 140]
Indeed. A marxist orientation of course. Eco-alarmism is about destroying the modern world and handing over more power to politicians and marxist-alarmists. As Lomberg wonderfully explains, a fraction of the money which would be consumed by Kyoto could be used to provide water, sanitation, medicine and education to all the world's poor. As Lomberg asks, is it enough to do something to feel good ? Or should we be doing something to do good ?
This then is the true value of the book. Marching along in lockstep with your arm raised in salue to eco-fuehrer Al Gore, and maintainig a life-long devotion to the eco-cult might feel good. But is that what we should do? If you are truly concerned about life, the environment, the cute polar bears or broken levees, than shouldn't you spend your time doing something concrete? Stop polar bear poaching, repair broker river and sea levees, support initiatives that provide water and education to poor Africans, put air conditioners into European cities, clean up rivers and lakes, advocate DDT and anti-viral medicines to fight African malaria and AIDS and get busy with reality.
These and other on-the-ground actions are far more relevant and moral, than cultish group think about climate. Rational, adult thinking is needed when addressing man-kind's issues – not empty posturing and empty-headed theories. Lomberg makes a strong case as to why that is so. For that reason every eco-cult member should read this book – and put down the kool-aid.
1/3/2011 America vs. Europe – Kyoto – Conclusion (continued)