Nexus - 1602 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE GOES ON CLIMATE CHANGE THE GOES DEBATE ote from Ed Ring, Editor, EcoWorld.com: We have been publishing more material than ever on the subject of climate change, for a very simple reason: the debate is not over as to the cause, the eventual severity or the remedies for climate change. The debate never was over, and for the mainstream press ever to have acceded to the notion that debate was over, or to condone marginalising anyone who continued to debate, is one of the most egregious examples of media bias in history. One should think that given what is at stake—the reorganisation of our entire political and economic systems—debate would be welcomed. One would think that those who are calling for debate and discussion would be heralded as voices of moderation and reason, instead of being branded as ideological fanatics and corporate shills. The fact that debate is supposedly "over" regarding something for which the remedy is so fundamentally and abruptly transformative should concern anyone who claims to care about human rights, individual freedoms, free enterprise and an open society. The idea that anyone who questions global warming alarmism is freely demonised should concern any student of history. The solution—government control over virtually anything that emits a gas, including CO», which plants and trees require for their very survival, and huge new taxes (perhaps disguised in the form of Wall Street—friendly "cap and trade" mechanisms, but the consumer still pays the freight)—should concern anyone who cares about representative government and values the concept of private property. Perhaps it is common sense that is endangered here. If the Earth is indeed warming because of anthropogenic CO2, what can be done? Shall we sequester 20-30 gigatons of CO» every year, when for the amount of money that would cost we could clean up every river, stop overfishing the oceans, eliminate every criteria air pollutant and fight malaria to a standstill? Even accepting conclusions of climate models—problematic concoctions that constitute the "scientific" imperative behind AGW [anthropogenic global warming] alarmism and consequent policy —isn't it true that we would have to sequester literally 80 per cent of the CO: currently attributed to human activity? Isn't that impossible? Why not reforest the planet? Why not restore the mangrove forests that used to stop tidal surges throughout the coastal tropics so they could regenerate and again stop seasonal storms from inundating tropical islands, and why not stop blowing up coral reefs to flush the cash crop of fish? There is a legitimate environmental agenda completely apart from global warming alarm—and there are many sceptics who nonetheless care deeply about the Scientists in increasing numbers around the world are reviewing the data and declaring their dissent from the UN IPCC "consensus" view that global warming is caused by human activity. Scientists in the UN IPCC by Marc Morano © 2008 Email: Marc_Morano @EPW.Senate.Gov Introduction by EcoWorld Editor Ed Ring © 2008 Web page: http://ecoworld.com/features/ 2008/03/15/the-debate-goes-on/ Email: Introduction by EcoWorld Editor Ed Ring © 2008 Web page: http://ecoworld.com/features/ 2008/03/15/the-debate-goes-on/ environment. Common sense would suggest we question the agenda of the global warming alarmists who rely on fear and questionable science, not that of the sceptics. If there is a "denial industry", who would benefit? A handful of underfunded think-tanks? If there is a hidden agenda, it is more likely coming from the "alarm industry". NEXUS ¢ 17 by Marc Morano © 2008 Marc_Morano @EPW.Senate.Gov FEBRUARY — MARCH 2009 www.nexusmagazine.com