I’ve been writing this Ecopolitics column for five years, in an honest effort to expose and correct the insidious liberal-progressive bias in the establishment media. I write about issues at the nexus (perhaps the collision) of the environmental movement, “green” government regulations and their impacts upon prosperity.
As a practicing environmental scientist for over 25 years and political “independent,” I’ve seen green activism move from the practical conservation and pollution controls of the 20th century, to green gone dangerously wrong as a radical cult or religion, and perversely partisan political special interest in the 21st century.
Progressives have not (will not) evolve from Gore’s pompous turn-of-the-century declaration that “the debate about global warming is over.” When you hear a political hack claim that a public policy debate is over, it means that the debate is not over and that such hack is losing the debate. Current climate science is far less settled than it was according to partisans Gore, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, most of the Democrat caucus, radical eco-groups and the United Nations where ideology and government paternalistic growth trumps science and economics.
One of the recently-repeated, progressive-green climate distortions is that “the majority of scientists (97%) agree that climate change is manmade and catastrophic.” From time to time, my readers comment to advance and improve the content of my articles. My recent article about “green lies” should have included review of the “97% concensus” as follows.
A central environmentalist assertion in the climate change argument is that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. The Canadian Friends of Science has completed an analysis of the four major studies used to contrive that alleged 97% consensus, and found that only 1 to 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC (U.N.) declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view." "These 'consensus' surveys appear to be used as a 'social (non-scientific) proof,'" says Friends of Science. "Just because a science paper includes the words 'global climate change' does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases." (American Thinker, February 4, 2014)
Subscribe free to this Column by clicking the blue-highlighted "Subscribe" line next to author's photo.