Global Warming Doubters use FUD? (July 23, 2010)

Posted: July 23, 2010 by Mike Hubbartt in Academia, Environmental Posts
Tags: , , , , , , ,

FUD – an acronym for Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. A practice used to generate fear in people so they will demand change or reject valid information.

Is global warming for real, or is it a fabrication? Most scientists and climatologists around the world state that global warming is a problem that we and our children must address. The biggest groups of people that disagree with global warming seem to rely on pseudo science, religious convictions, or political positions.

Chris Monckton

Dr. John Abraham

A noted global warming skeptic named Christopher Monckton from the UK gave a presentation at Bethel College and stated that global warming is not an issue. The problem: Monckton lacks scientific background and credentials to act as a valid analyst of this topic. Dr. John Abraham, a professor at the University of St. Thomas, viewed Monckton’s slides and pointed out how each point either relied on old or incorrectly-interpreted data, or used non-facts to promote Monckton’s views. Click here to watch Dr. Abraham’s excellent analysis and dissection of Monckton’s attempts to dismiss global warming using pseudo science and unverifiable quotes. Monckton’s response was an unprovoked and unwarranted attack on Dr. Abraham and the University of St. Thomas.

I’ve discussed this topic with friends and colleagues for the past 4 years and have seen people rely on political and religious positions to justify their disbelief in global warming. One colleague tried to use half truths as a reason to doubt science and said “he only believes in the law of gravity.”  I sadly told him there is no law of gravity, which he did not believe. A friend told me he didn’t believe in global warming because God wouldn’t allow us to destroy ourselves. I wondered then (and now) how much damage 3000+ nuclear weapons in US and Russian arsenals could do to our planet… I’m guessing it wouldn’t take that many to destroy the planet and they do exist, so what does that prove to this perspective? Both cases show that some people have made up their minds about something and will look for anything to validate that position – you can’t discuss something with someone that refuses to be open-minded, so don’t bother.

Science attempts to find answers, whether or not those answers agree or disagree with current or previous political and religious opinions. When people use pseudo science, rumors, outright lies, or misstate the truth to bolster their opinion, then you have to question their ethics. I believe that trying to hide what you are or want or promote means you have doubts people will believe you if you are honest. Why? I believe that scientists are people, but they are held accountable to their peers who review their works. Good and ethical scientists try to find answers and embrace the truth, but scientists are human and can be wrong. Science is based on asking questions and trying to find the truth, not twisting facts to fit their political and religious viewpoints.

I applaud Dr.Abraham, an expert with credentials to back his positions, for taking the time to put together a presentation that shows the inconvenient facts, and hope other scientists continue to stand up for the truth.

Just my two cents…

==============================================================================

JULY 30, 2010 –  A Followup

Another conspiracy? Please! Since Dr. Abraham’s presentation that refutes Chris Monckton’s position on climate change, Monckton has used mail and interviews to lash out at Dr. Abraham, who refuses to be pulled into a series of personal attacks. Dr. Abraham has stated the scientific reasons why Monckton’s presentation is wrong, and Monckton responded by letters to the University of St. Thomas demanding that they punish Dr. Abraham. Bravo to Dr. Abraham for refusing to let the facts be overridden by Monckton’s non-scientific outlandish claims, and bravo to the university of St. Thomas for supporting their professor and for refusing to be bullied into placating a non-expert. For someone that bandies about the word ‘libel’ so often, Monckton should consider his own comments about Dr.Abraham, the University of St. Thomas, and the university President.

For more information, click here.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Harry {doc) Babad says:

    The games people play – the media and perhaps you too:-

    Not unsurprisingly, the tempest created by the media and climate change naysayers has been demonstrated not only untrue, but a deliberately falsified conspiracy theory about the actual data and its analysis to foster the beliefs of this who have a personal or vested interest in not believing climate change is here and will be getting worse. Indeed, for months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media and on the Internet, accused of hiding data, covering up errors and suppressing alternate views. According to reports in the the Christian Science monitor (July 7, 2010), the leaked ‘Climategate’ e-mails showed lack of transparency, plus some politicking. But while scientists have been largely cleared of wrongdoing, the impact has shaken climate science. One example of such exoneration, in his report, British civil servant Sir Muir Russell found that the Climategate e-mails don’t undermine the basic science behind man-made global warming. Nevertheless, the impact of the leaked e-mails has been to push scientists toward the realization that talking about punching climate skeptics and being coy about releasing data hardly build public trust in their work.

    At this time, five separate independent investigations (3 in the United Kingdom and 2 in the U.S.) of the matter have concluded that there was no mishandling of data or other wrongdoing beyond some foot-dragging in response to Freedom of Information requests by climate change deniers. The clear message from these investigations is that proper scientific methods were followed and the integrity of climate science remains solid as a rock.

    See: http://www.pewclimate.org/blog/gulledgej/climategate-scientists-exonerated

    Never-the-less, a good thing, climate studies and data are being more skeptically scrutinized and independently analyzed by more technically able individuals.

    If you believe those like Chrisopher Monckton expertise, you should also be willing to have a heart transplant from anyone with a health education course in their past. No, not all people with no credentials are wrong about their technical insights and analysis, but proving these new theory’s right usually takes a generation of hard work by the rest of the scientific community all under the spotlight of peer review.

    Examples include the acceptance of the reality plate tectonics, vaccination causes autism in children, Darwin’s ideas of evolution, now the arguments on the causes of dementia. Meanwhile I suggest buying some property 40-150 feet above sea level or better yet investing in a condominium under the surface of the ocean.

    doc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s