Monday, November 23, 2009

When Science Gets Political

I am married to a scientist, a geologist who is a professor at a Canadian university. Not a man to shout his opinions loudly (leave that to his wife), over the past year he has voiced his concerns over the wedding of environmental science and political agendas. In fact, on one occasion, he said to me that science has never been used as a political tool until this past decade with the theory of global warming.

So it is with a personal interest that I am reading about the internet release of data from the Hadley Centre’s Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in England. This information was hacked by some Russians supposedly, although that has not been confirmed. And one would wonder what their motive would be, since Russia is not seen as a nation that wishes to demolish current scientific theory. It may take a few days for this news to hit the main-stream media, but it is all over the blogosphere now.

Reports are confirming that the data hacked and released is authentic and it is shaking up many political figures. It seems that the theory of global warming has been advanced and the data to confirm it has been put forward, while data to the contrary has been suppressed.

You can read about the news here and read an article by Rand Simberg on the repercussions of this news here and another by Charlie Martin here.

I was amused by a post on Small Dead Animals , a site by Canadian blogger Kate McMillan. One comment read that perhaps a suicide watch should be placed on David Suzuki. Not to mention Al Gore, who was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change.

What is worrisome is the way in which this theory of global warming has been bought by governments everywhere. And those governments have been implementing policies based on this theory, policies that impact the lives of ordinary people. It is only common sense that we should be reducing our carbon footprint, that we should be reducing waste products of all sorts, that we should be good stewards of the earth's resources and ensuring the future of the environment for generations to come. But what we have seen recently is the proposal from bodies within the United Nations, to name one example, who advocate population reduction in order to reduce our carbon footprint and to "save the planet".

The global warming theory is science that has been stolen by those who have a political agenda, one that is not people-friendly at all.

Reports, such as this one from the London School of Economics and Political Science state that
"The best way to combat global warming is to reduce the surplus population through contraception and abortion" - Hilary White, LifeSiteNews, Sept 10, 2009

Environmental extremists are calling for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population to save the planet from global warming, saying the best “carbon offset” is no more carbon-dioxide emitting human beings ... A report published May 7 by the Optimum Population Trust declared that the best “carbon-offset strategy” was to reduce the number of human beings and thus defeat the “global warming” phenomenon
- Peter Smith, Steve Jalsevac, LifeSiteNews, May 8, 2007

Over the past thirty years, there has been a steadily-increasing pressure upon families in the West to reduce the number of children in their families. Not to mention the pressure that is now exerted by UN agencies upon families in the Third World. People are made to feel that they are irresponsible if they have more than two children, and if they dare to have a "largish" family of four or more children, they have to be prepared for an onslaught of criticism from, well ... everyone. And those who criticize have felt justified in doing so because now they have science to back them up, since every additional person adds to the threatening spectre of climate change.

Whoa, let's stop this recrimination right now. The actual truth is that the world is not in danger of over-population, nor is it in danger of warming up to unliveable temperatures, nor is the world not capable of sustaining population growth. These are theories being pushed by those who, for some reason, don't wish to have large families themselves or any families (if you look at these folks individually). And they don't want anyone else to have kids either.

And while I'm on this track, I'd like to add that those light bulbs that David Suzuki has been pushing on television commerials, should be sold with a clear warning. If they break, exit the building immediately, as fluorine gas is emitted, and guess what? it is toxic. Not to mention the fact that the light bulbs, which are supposed to be really long-lasting and therefore energy-saving, actually only burn for 1/4 of the time that they have been purported to last for.

If Suzuki doesn't need a suicide watch, he may need a washcloth to get the egg off his face.


Elena said...

I think that it is actually mercury that is emitted and dave has put a ban on them as they all last for a much shorter period than the old type of bulb. also,interesting above comment - somehow lost in translation. The environmental movement is not only a marriage of political agenda and science but it is also a religion to those who eschew traditional religion. The minute population control is brought up we should all smell something distinctly fishy if not evil. What drives me crazy is some churches/school boards have taken global warming to heart and implemented it as part of the Gospel. There is one hope: the really radical environmentalists are dead set against 'breeding' thus they will have no one to whom they can pass on their thinking. Sniff.
p.s. I also think that the movement is a conscience-free avenue of feeling and acting passionately. There are not many causes to which one can be devoted without having to change a moral aspect of one's life - the environmental movement is one of those causes that requires no change other than garbage reduction, recycling, composting and so on. Minor changes, really.

Grainger said...

I suspected that something like this would happen a few years ago. My hunched was just based on the fact that the people pushing the Global Warming agenda seemed to have political motives instead of purely scientific ones.