Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Global-warming theory and the eugenics precedent

arroba Email

Heard on the street: “I am a working scientist with a mortgage and family to support. I am paid to conduct research into Evolution. Who will pay me to conduct research into Intelligent Design?” Filed under “Follow the money”. The article below makes a similar point about eugenics “research” in the past and global warming “research” today.

Global-warming theory and the eugenics precedent by John Linder, U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, February 19th, 2007

Excerpts follow. Go to the link for the full article.

“Global Warming” had a precursor in capturing the hearts and minds of the world. Michael Crichton, in his novel “State of Fear,” brilliantly juxtaposes the world’s current political embrace of “global warming” with the popular embrace of the “science” of eugenics a century ago.

One must ask, “How in the world did university researchers come to conclusions that defended this outrageous affront to society?” A look back at the research concluded that the researchers adjusted their outcomes to support the theory of those paying for the research. This is not unusual. It is very easy to believe that the settled science regarding climate change is just as suspicious, and indeed may be another example of pseudo-science capturing the imagination of politicians, actors and the media elite who have a desperate need to embrace some “science” which may force us to change the way we live our lives. H. L. Mencken once wrote, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it.” We see pictures of huge blocks of ice crashing into the sea from the Antarctic Peninsula, which comprises about 2 percent of the continent. The fact that the remaining 98 percent of Antarctica is growing by 26.8 gigatons of ice per year is ignored.

We are told today that human activity is causing a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide levels that is responsible for “global warming.” While a congressional delegation was visiting the Antarctic expedition in January of 2003 we were shown the results of the Vostok ice-sheet cores where temperatures and CO2 levels were measured as far as 400,000 years ago. At that time, the level of CO2 was 280 parts per million parts of atmosphere (ppm), about what it was 20 years ago. The levels of CO2 and temperature rode up and down in consonance over 400,00 years. “Who,” I asked, “was burning the fossil fuels 400,000 years ago?” I was treated as though I was rude.

It has been known for years that most CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. It is called “carbon sinking.” The oceans typically contain 60 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. It is also known that colder waters dissolve more CO2 than warm waters. Which do you think is cause and which is effect? We currently have CO2 levels of about 380 ppm. A recent study completed at UC Davis concluded that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 300 million years ago was on the order of 2,000 ppm. Then this, “the same increase that experts expect by the end of this century as remaining reserves of fossil fuels are burned.” If it is a given that human burning of fossil fuels is what will cause an increase of CO2 levels up to 2,000 ppm in the next 93 years, don’t they owe us an explanation as to who burned those fossil fuels 300 million years ago? In fact we are being treated to a modern scientific shell game. The most prevalent and efficient greenhouse gas is not CO2; it is water vapor, which accounts for about 60 percent of the heat-trapping gases while CO2 accounts for about 26 percent. So, why are we being served a daily diet of our destroying the environment with our behavior as it relates to CO2? Because our behavior has little to do with the amount of water vapor, so it is a non-starter when it comes to those whose principal goal is ruling our lives.

In order to focus on you and what you are doing to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, which, as everyone knows will destroy the globe, we do not discuss the activities of termites. Fifteen years ago it was estimated that the digestive tracts of termites produce about 50 billion tons of CO2 and methane annually. That was more than the world’s production from burning fossil fuel. Additionally, cattle, horses and other ruminant animals are huge producers of both CO2 and methane, but, being unable to respond to our demands on this issue, their activity is ignored.

When it comes to methane, another greenhouse gas, termites are responsible for 11 percent of the world’s production from natural sources. Seventy-six percent comes from wetlands, which provide habitat conducive to bacteria, which produce 145 million metric tons of methane per year during the decomposition of organic material. It is curious that the very alarmists on climate change are alarmists on saving and increasing wetlands.

eebrom This is all interesting stuff — “first-rate” science, a dismal failure. Yes, a dismal failure. I believe we're witnessing the unraveling of science. Once thought to be the height of 'objectivity', it is coming to be seen for what it is: a tool for those with an agenda. Science is thus no longer a bulwark protecting us from 'irrationality', but has now become a sword swung by the 'irrational'. Metaphysics may make a comeback yet! PaV
3000 PPM = 0.3% CO2 In comparison Venus > 95% CO2 The good news is we won't have to worry about global warming with an atmosphere of 95% CO2 (we would be dead). I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" on Tuesday. And I happen to agree in that we should conserve our natural resources plus treat this planet with more respect. If people don't have water- do what the Romans did- bring the water to the people. Believe it or not we have the technolgy and the ability. OR move the people. Adapt or die. About a month earlier I watched as scientists demonstrated that our liquid core may very well be mixing and then switch poles, as they said has occurred before. During the end of the mixing period and just after the switch the Earth will be more vulnerable to the Sun's rays, making it warmer. It was alleged that we are in such a period now. Perhaps that also factors in with the December 21-23, 2012 date of the conjunction- Earth, Sun, center of the Milky Way. Somehow I don't think we can control every aspect of what our planet cycles through. But Al is right- we should control what we can. Joseph
This is all interesting stuff -- "first-rate" science, a dismal failure. CCNET today provides 3 links to the notion that the nature of environment is far too complex for modeling to have any chance at reasonable prediction. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/978023113/9780231132121.HTM http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/prediction_book/ http://www.lttonline.co.uk/ Far too complex! Now that is an interesting admission for today's "science" to make. I'm wondering if there is a sizable fraction of scientist's out there who have never heard of ID. A priceless irony would be that they "discovered" some design inference on their own. eebrom
Hey, Al Gore is being considered for an honorary doctorate in climatology. Guess this debate is over!! tribune7
I was wondering about that as well. Water Vapour and Methane are much worse from a global warming perspective. Where is the Kyoto protocol on water vapour production ? Jason Rennie

Leave a Reply