“According to some climatologists, within a lifetime, we might be living in the next Ice Age.” — Leonard Nimoy, In Search Of: The Coming Ice Age (1978)
February 24, 2015—Do you believe the “science” behind “climate change”? Or are you a “climate change denier”? Or maybe simply a “climate change skeptic”? Do the goals of climate change activists have more to do with changing the world’s “economic development models” for reasons other than climate change, as recently implied by Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
What’s interesting is that a lot of people call the “economic development model” they want to change “capitalism.” It’s not. It’s rather Marxist crony-capitalism, or socialism. The “changes” they want to make will make the Marxist crony-capitalist socialism worse.
That aside, what’s also interesting is that “global cooling” was the consensus just over 3 decades ago. Watch the short clip below. Its from 1978’s In Search Of: The Coming Ice Age narrated by Leonard Nimoy. Looks much like the snow storms currently hammering the northeast, doesn’t it?
“Climate experts believe the next Ice Age is on its way. According to recent evidence, it could come sooner than anyone had expected.”
Now, how did we get from an imminent “Ice Age” to global warming climate change in under 4 decades? There’s plenty of theories on this. One of the more prominent is the “greenhouse gas theory.”
This brings us to Dr. Pierre Latour.
In the clip below, Dr. Pierre Latour, in a speech to the 2014 Electric Universe “All About Evidence Conference,” claims to have debunked the science behind the greenhouse gas theory.
Dr. Latour spent several years working on a temperature control for the earth, implementing the disciplines of physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, economics, history, and ethics before concluding that the science behind the greenhouse gas theory is falsifiable:
“I can’t get a grip on this greenhouse gas theory in the language of nature, which is mathematics. There are numerous versions on the theory, and the best I can tell, they’re all empirical, they’re correlations of historic data, and there’s not much consensus about which one is right. So my position is, I claim there’s overwhelming scientific and engineering consensus that the greenhouse gas theory does not exist. The effect of CO2 on the temperature of the earth is vanishingly small, the science is settled, and I’ve got sufficient evidence to prove those claims beyond any reasonable doubt… Greenhouse gas theory is falsifiable. I falsified it. It’s false.”
Of climate change advocates Dr. Latour says: “They also say the science is settled, and they also say it’s unfalsifiable. Those are the claims. Our culture is full of people making claim, after claim, after claim, after claim, after claim, and one of the things that attracted me to this conference is it’s all about evidence. Well, those claims that they make, they have no supporting evidence. And in fact, they seem to be unaware that their last claim moves the greenhouse gas theory from the realm of science into religion and superstition.”
Check out the clip and let us know what you think. Which of Dr. Latour’s points is most interesting or revealing to you?
How about this: “Corrupting science is bad. Al Gore promotes spending by governments around the globe to finance his multibillion dollar venture capital fund, KPCB, which owns 16 GreenTech firms and Google. Providing government grants for fraudulent science research promoting caps on CO2 production is a conflict of interest. I personally found flawed science in peer reviewed papers in Science and Proceedings of the Royal Society and published my findings in a letter to HP in January, 2009.”
Or maybe Dr. Latour’s distinction between CO2 and other pollutants, and his support for other environmental initiatives such as “reforestation and efforts to curtail anthropogenic pollutants like SO2, NOx, Bz, CFC’s, particulates and surface ozone… As for CO2 though, I oppose depriving Earth’s flora of their green plant food, choking and starving them for personal gain… starving and choking plants of their food supply would be a monumental crime against humanity, all fauna and flora, the environment and Earth itself.”
Or perhaps Dr. Latour’s point here: “Since there are no graduate or licensed chemical process control engineers in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), US Congress, Cabinet or Supreme Court, these incompetent groups continue to waste time and money since 1997 attempting the impossible, designing Earth’s thermostat using anthropogenic CO2.” (Of note: the Chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has cancelled appearances this week amidst allegations of sexual harassment from a 29-year old employee of his at The Energy and Resources Institute).
Or finally: “Solar radiation drives Earth’s temperature. CO2 has nothing to do with it.”
Check out the clip and let us know what you think. Is the “science” behind the greenhouse gas theory falsifiable? If so, does the global warming argument unspool? Are climate change advocates truly motivated by environmental concerns, or power and profit? Sound off in the comments!
“Thus, when we peel away the hysteria, the confusions, and the unsound philosophy of the environmentalists, we find an important bedrock case against the existing system; but the case turns out to be not against capitalism, private property, (libertarianism) or modern technology. It is a case against the failure of government to allow and defend the rights of private property against invasion. Pollution and overuse of resources (climate change) stem directly from the failure of government to defend private property. If property rights were to be defended adequately, we would find that here, as in other areas of our economy and society, private enterprise and modern technology would come not as a curse to mankind but as its salvation.” – Murray Rothbard
Anthony Watts, “A Compilation of News Articles on the Global Cooling Scare of the 1970’s”
James Taylor, “Climategate 2.0: New E-mails Rock the Global Warming Debate”
Hockey Stick Controversy
Murray Rothbard, Conservation in the Free Market
Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty