It’s hard to be more anti-scientific than to state the climate-change debate is settled science.
Welcome to the April Business of Wine issue of NorthBay biz. Operating a successful wine business takes specialized business acumen and involves so much more than the already difficult tasks of managing a vineyard or pouring wine in a tasting room. We hope this issue provides some insights into the economic engine that drives so much of the work and leisure industries that surround us every day. So please enjoy all the stories, columns and special features in the North Bay’s only locally owned, formerly glossy business publication—NorthBay biz.
OK, slippery slope time. First, the disclaimer: I’m an advocate of clean air and water. I’m all for protecting the land and oceans from abuse and degradation; for open space and the creation of green belts; for sustainable farming practices. I firmly believe everyone benefits when business partners with the environmental community to find solutions that promote responsible growth. The magazine, over time, has run numerous stories embracing this theme and I know the North Bay is blessed to have the vast majority of people in the business community, who not only believe in this concept too, but support it by their actions.
What troubles me is the assertion that’s become almost liturgical in nature: “The debate is settled. Climate change is fact.” Yep, one thing you can always depend upon is that weather changes. Another thing you can depend upon is that science is rarely settled.
I resent watching the environmental movement being hijacked to serve a radical political agenda. And its proponents will brook no debate. If you don’t worship at the altar of Gaia, you’re a denier and should be ignored or, if some proponents have their way, punished.
It’s hard to be more anti-scientific than to state the climate change debate is settled science. The focus and noble goal of protecting the planet has become a red herring masking true intentions. Here’s what a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently said: “One must say clearly that we must redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” How is it that today’s climate policy increasingly has less to do with environmental protection and more to do with wealth redistribution? Christina Figueres, the United Nation’s chief climate change official said that her staff is undertaking “probably the most difficult task they’ve ever had, which is to intentionally transform the global economic model.”
Science reports certain hard facts regarding climate change. These facts are subject to interpretation that have spawned a multitude of disaster scenarios whose conclusions remain unproven, but we’re told to doubt these dire predictions is to commit heresy. Here’s one example of scientific fact: Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average 380 parts per million (ppm). CO2 levels were 4,400 ppm 400 million years ago, but prevailing temperatures were approximately what they are today. With CO2 levels that high, shouldn’t the seas have been boiling? How do settled science advocates answer that question?
Every decade (since the 1960s) had scores of predictions based on what was said to be settled science. We were warned of ice ages, food shortages, floods, killer hurricanes, death and unmitigated destruction—all driven by a runaway climate caused by the excesses of man.
Published predictions by noted scientists included: “65 million Americans would die in the 1980s of starvation and, by 2000, England would cease to exist.” In 1970, a biologist from Harvard predicted the end of civilization in 30 years if immediate action wasn’t taken to mitigate the threat of a cooling climate. Others predicted mass extinctions, flaming rivers and flooded coastlines displacing millions of people. However, the “settled science” kept changing. Today, we’re told to believe cold winters and hot summers are further proof of man-made climate change.
That’s just a smattering of the dire forecasts projected upon the world unless something is done immediately about global warming—oops—I mean climate change. And, of course, that something inevitably turns out to be us acquiescing to more taxes. The only way to save the world is to raise energy prices, tax carbon and give more money to politicians, Al Gore, the United Nations, anybody, somebody and soon, or we’re all doomed. Crony capitalism spawns billions of dollars in fiascos like Solyndra where the quest to feed at the public trough is justified by draping the project in a “green” aura.
I know the country is in a far better place because of the environmental movement—wonderful, unbelievable things have been accomplished, but the movement has been hijacked by those who only seek to enrich themselves, not only in wealth, but in more control and power over our lives.
I’ve heard enough talk about not approving pipelines and how great it would be if we all lived in 240-square-foot cubicles stacked on top of one another to know that, despite what some pols tell us, $9 for a gallon of gas is not my (or most people’s) idea of utopia.
Is man responsible for global warming? Could be. I really don’t know. Is it possible? Sure. However, here’s what I do know: The science involved in anthropological climate change isn’t settled. I also know that scare tactics, trying to silence and ostracize anyone who doesn’t agree and making protecting the planet about wealth redistribution is a sure way to create more doubters.
That’s it for now. Enjoy this month’s magazine.
