Terry Cowgill

Earthly Heat

August 5, 2008 on 12:40 pm | In Global Warming, Race for Prez |

I’m trying not to pay a whole lot of attention to the presidential campaign right now, as it’s making my stomach turn, frankly.

But I will say this: in an environment that is toxic for Republicans, why on earth is Obama only beating the pro-war McCain in national polls by 1-5 points, especially in the aftermath of O’s overseas trip in which he was cheered on by the news media (and the Euros) to an extraordinary degree? I know it’s still early and the electoral college polls aren’t quite as close, but if I were a Democrat, I would be concerned.

* * * * * * * *

Now on to another topic near-and-dear to my heart. I’ve noticed that others, too, are tired of the campaign. So on the pages of RCP, for example, I’ve seen a lot of space given over recently to that old stand-by, global warming.

Yesterday, a fellow from the Kennedy School argued that the debate should essentially be over. I’ve heard this from people like him before. Those who question the indisputable realities of man-caused global warming are really the post-modern equivalent of creationists or … Holocaust deniers.

Dr. Holdren further suggests that non-scientists do not have the standing to question the science and those scientists who do so are poorly credentialed hacks. I would ask this question:

Do non-scientists have the standing to embrace the concept of man-made climate change? I have a feeling he would welcome my support (I got a D in high school chemistry, so I’m an eminently qualified non-scientist).

How about if a scientific charlatan declared global warming a real and present danger that demanded drastic action (I’m sure there have been a few of them)? Would Holdren say the quack didn’t know what he was talking about because he got his Ph.D. at the Cayman Islands College of Climatology? And what precisely are Al Gore’s academic credentials?

There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that the planet has been warming for some time. The question is to what extent man is responsible. Man-caused warming should not be embraced simply because, as Holdren asserts, skeptics “have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed.”

What explanation do climatologists have for the wild fluctuations in global temps before man even existed? I don’t know whether my activity is contributing to climate change or not. One thing is for certain, however.

For some, global warming has become a religion much like right-wing Christianity and Islamic fundamentalism. Among its followers are bands of arrogant elitists determined to force their way of life on everyone else in the name of saving us all. Sound familiar?

P.S. Look, there is now evidence that the world’s oceans are actually cooling. They even asked some scientists about it.