As more people become aware there is no man-caused global warming, will the green movement suffer?

No

1 of 3

by Jeffrey Wright

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

It is mind boggling to me that people believe that the global warming issue is being disproven. The science is sound, the research done by top scientific minds of the world and supported as a whole, granted not by all, in the science community. A recent study, done by the Academy of Science, concluded this year in 2009 that has upheld the validity of man made global warming.

There's a word that one should be considered here, accountable. As a whole people don't want to think that they are doing something that causes harm to someone or something else. Why? Because then they would have to be held accountable for it and would have to change. Largely, people don't like change. And so the battle grounds start at that point. But where does all this argument against human caused global warming originate?

George C. Marshall Institute, which is a Washington DC think tank founded in 1984 by Robert Jastrow, has been the starting source from which many of the misconceptions about manmade global warming started. We're talking about such ideas as there is no consensus among scientists that it's real or not, for example. This think tank didn't even base their accusations on science, that wasn't their job. In fact this think tank never did original scientific research whatsoever, nor did they ever attempt to raise funds to do so. Their job was to specifically raise doubt in the mainstream media about a number of issues during the cold war. Instead of disbanding at the conclusion of the cold war, they turned their sites on global warming, and repeated the same process. Interestingly many of the people in this think tank were the same people who tried to discredit the surgeon general's findings on the cancerous effects of cigarette smoke in an ad campaign

Making matters worse, there was a huge attack on Benjamin Santer's 1995 IPCC report that was interestingly corroborated by the Chairmen of the IPCC and the forty others that were involved with developing that report. What had basically happened there is Santer was accused of changing the report to make it look like there was more agreement on the cause of global warming, and then there really was. Santer responded in the same journal that that he had changed some things, but that the changes were made as part of the peer review process whereby if something was off it would then be changed to match the understandings and data. This is a completely normal scientific practice. This report was signed by over forty other scientists and on top of that he was formally supported by the American Metrological Society.

Frederick Seitz was an advisor to the R.J Reynolds Company, which was a tobacco company. His job was to find underfunded people to research the claims that tobacco smoke caused cancer, and to use that information to confound the links between tobacco and cancer. The research was specifically done so that it could be used to show that the science was uncertain. Of course now we know that the link is real. But here is the interesting thing: this same man along with a couple of others, have lead an almost carbon copy attack on global warming. Their point was not and still is not to argue the science but to create doubt among the public that the issue is as settled as claimed. So they use the media to run their anti global warming campaign to spread doubt and confusion among the masses.

The American Science Academies have completed a two year long review of ever piece of information that could be found on the subject, which was completed in 2009. It was found that man made global warming is a reality. Bill Chameides, who is the Dean of the Nicolas School of the Environment, has directly stated that the sun isn't the problem as some claim. The suns output have been studied for thirty years from space and that there's been no net increase in its output. If the sun were causing the earth to get warmer than it should, there should be a net increase in the output in the sunright? This makes logical sense. These are the types of statements made this year! And not just about the effects of the sun. Yet climate science is still under attack?

These critics that keep fighting something that is no longer fightable. They are making an attack on global warming just like the cigarette campaign they made in the 1970's. Just like that campaign failed so will this one. It's only a matter of time. This new so called evidence, who is it even by? An interesting thing I've noticed in researching this is the people who work on spreading true scientific understanding about global warming usually makes specific mention of who they are sighting as agreeing with the findings. You almost never see this with people who argue against it, which is pretty interesting. And the ones they do site have been picked apart and disproven. Yet they cling to these people like they were some sort of Holy Grail that will allow them to be right even when they are wrong. Sadly, just like they were proven wrong about cigarettes they will be proven wrong about global warming as well. The green movement will not suffer, but rather strengthen.

Learn more about this author, Jeffrey Wright.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.