This is not a partisan rant about the glorification of one and the denigration of another political party. This is a plea to the reader's common sense and concern for their own and their progeny's future.
Recently, I watched a documentary titled "Antarctic Edge, 70 degrees South." In this film, the world's elite climate scientists embark on a study of the fastest warming place on Earth. Yes, that's right, the Antarctic. And the amount of ice in the Antarctic has a significant effect on the warming of our planet and the ocean's ability to remove carbon from our atmosphere.
I was alarmed. So I began to wonder about why something as real and as dangerous as this is so controversial. Surely, our politicians are just as concerned as I am. So I did an Internet search to find out exactly what they are saying publically about this controversy.
The first big jolt was this statement from one of them and I quote, "the ice in the Antarctic is growing". He said this even though satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate and the documentary showed indisputable evidence to the contrary. In fact, it's the fastest warming area of the planet and the ice is shrinking at an alarming rate.
The actual findings in this documentary and the obvious disconnect of that politician's statement caused me a great deal of concern. I have 6 grandchildren and I'm worried about their future and what kind of planet we're going to leave them.
So I did some more searching and I found too many quotes to itemize here but I've compiled a short list and the actual scientific response to each. Here's that sampling:
A politician said, "The sun itself has variable output, which affects temperature cycles." The science is "in the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in the opposite directions."
Then another politician said, "The science is not settled, and the science is actually going the other way." But the actual science is "that human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations."
Then another politician said, "this 97% [of climate scientists accepting human-caused global warming], that doesn't mean anything. I named literally thousands of scientists on the floor...and these were top people." The fact is he didn't name thousands and "those 97 % of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming."
Then another politician said, what about "The e-mails that reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures?" The facts are the 'decline' refers to a "decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports."
Another politician added, "I'm not one to attribute every activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet." But the science is, "No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases."
Then a politician said, "Just because you have a group of scientists who stood up and said here is the fact. Galileo got outvoted for a spell." The fact is, "modern scientists, not anti-science skeptics, follow in Galileo's footsteps."
Then he said, "there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects." Once again, the fact is, "A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident."
In summary, there's much more I could quote but I've made my point. So the critical question is, why? Why do politicians seem so ready to reject the science and hang on to their positions in the face of evidence to the contrary? I'm sure most of them are grandparents.
Then I checked into who sponsors their campaigns. No surprise here. The Koch brothers lead with over $9.5 million in 2013-14 and the Oil industry lead lobbying efforts by spending over $144 million in the same period. Excuse the pun, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
3
2
