Last year, Al Gore released his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. This film warns us of the disastrous consequences of global warming, and it lays out the framework for what the film deems a necessary set of changes that would cost the world $553 trillion (according to one U.N. estimate). The movie earned an Academy Award, and Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize (although many scratch their heads as they try to connect global warming with world peace). But should we really take his warnings at face value?
Many of Gore’s claims are either distortions of the truth, oversimplifications or just pure lies. For example, he directly correlates increased CO2 with average temperature increase, an unproven theory at best, with many exceptions in history. He states that Antarctica is melting, but he fails to mention that many researchers believe it has been melting for 6000 years and that 98 percent of the continent is actually reversing into a cooling trend since the 1970s, leaving only 2 percent melting.
Gore points out an increase in the cases of malaria in Nairobi since temperatures have gone up-even after the World Health Organization, a division of his hallowed U.N. stated that cases of malaria have decreased dramatically there in recent decades. And 1934 was the warmest year according to some records-not 2005, as Gore states.
Gore is, however, greatly assisted by a one-sided media. The heat wave of 2006 (during which very few records were actually broken) “validated” global warming beyond doubt. However a record-setting cold snap in the Midwest, Northeast and Hawaii, not to mention snows in Malibu, Calif., and Miami Beach, Fla., don’t cast a shade of doubt on this supposed global trend. An incredibly long, devastating hurricane season proved global warming in 2005, when seven high-category hurricanes and one tropical storm struck the United States; since then, only six tropical storms and one Category-1 hurricane have struck the United States, yet doubt remains elusive.
The idea that global warming will result in catastrophe has also been doubted by many climatologists. The El Niño climate years (including 2006) provided a glimpse into what the Western Hemisphere may be like in a warmer climate, and it isn’t that bad. Accordng to some statistics, during the serious El Niño of 1998, $4 billion was lost directly, but the warmer temperatures resulted in longer growing seasons and lower use of heat utilities, with a gross profit of $19 billion. Some estimates predict 2,000 global-warming-related deaths in the U.K., yet 20,000 fewer would die in the cold. Based on these statistics and figures, it is no exaggeration that warmer temperatures would make for a better world.
The typical liberal power complex easily explains the motivation behind people such as Gore manufacturing lies and distorting information.
Liberals like to think that they are all-powerful, and they desire to impose this power on everyone else. This is visible in government policies introduced by liberals, such as tax hikes and universal healthcare: Tax hikes do not generate more revenue, and universal healthcare means a decrease in quality. But it extends government control, which is all that matters. The great environmental scare is the exact same thing. The sun and the oceans contribute to environmental changes far more than we do, but this is not addressed by any environmentalists. It is automatically assumed that we are responsible.
Once the liberals have established a problem through this power complex, they can move on to creating a solution that will impose more control over the American people and the world. The “solutions” that they are proposing are ridiculous and obscenely expensive, as mentioned above. The Kyoto Treaty will only delay the temperature rise by four years, but will destroy the international economy.
They can use the global warming scare to tell us how much we can drive, how long we can keep our lights on and affect the overall quality of our lives. It’s not about preventing global warming; it’s about stopping progress and controlling people. In a new exhibit in the Museum of Natural History in New York about the value of water, we are told that we should revert to an uncivilized and tribal lifestyle. Technology and progress are enemies to radical environmentalism.
Yes, global warming is a problem. It is an expensive problem, a serious problem and one that must be addressed. But Gore and the extreme environmentalists have taken a problem and turned it into a catastrophe, now making educated debate and a wise solution difficult. Gore himself has called it a “moral” rather than a scientific issue, merely attempting to silence all manner of debate whatsoever. He is the all-knowing god of the environment; we are no one to challenge him or his teachings.
Before any lawmakers pass any significant legislation, they must make sure that all the data is in and that a true consensus is reached. The “consensus” referred to by Gore is a fabrication; many scientists have resigned from the IPCC in outrage over its propagandist tactics, while still having their signatures placed at the end. The first step is for Congress to start funding an independent group of certified scientists to research the real state of the world and what the best course of action is.
Hopefully, we will not allow the United States or the world to be hijacked by radical left-wingers who are brainwashing everyone into believing that our technology and progress have brought us into a state of mortal and imminent peril. It is through careful research and deliberations that we will determine where the money can be best spent to help the world as a whole.
Brett Kostrzewski is a freshman in Parks College of Engineering, Aviation and Technology.
