I found Jim Allard’s opinion column titled “Climate Crisis Prone to Misinformation” to be itself full of misinformation. While I admire Allard’s renunciation of current environmentalist ideology — one based on exaggeration and ignorance — the article relied on omitting many facts to make its case.
The article makes unsubstantiated claims like “Falling global temperatures … are no longer cooperating with global warming predictions.” In truth, average global temperatures obviously fluctuate from year to year, and the upward trend is only observable on a larger scale. Annual fluctuations are equivalent to noise present in any kind of scientific data. Furthermore, physicists have accepted the greenhouse effect since the mid-19th century. It’s not up for debate. Also obvious is the fact that the product of human activity has released greenhouse gases over time, affecting the earth’s climate to some extent. And as for “Climategate,” this kind of behavior on the part of scientists is nothing new. Reading Arthur Koestler’s “The Case of the Midwife Toad,” about a scientist who injected toads with ink to “prove” his incorrect theory, gives a much crueler example of a paradigm defense. Attacking a few messengers should not invalidate scientists’ message, especially when it is grounded in the reputable work of so many other researchers, dating back to the pre-Civil War era.
Allard’s coverage of fossil fuel emissions goes on to neglect the presence of other dangerous compounds, such as nitrites/nitrates and sulfites/sulfates, which cause other environmental problems. It is obtuse to suggest that opposition to fossil fuel emissions has only risen in recent years in response to hype created by Al Gore. Gore is but one catalyst to the present opposing force of these emissions.
I also question the article’s characterization of environmental policy as “wealth destroying.” Developing green energy will create many non-exportable jobs within the U.S. and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which will both benefit national security and keep American money within the United States. Research at institutions like the University of Wisconsin is centered on developing safer, cleaner and more efficient technologies. Should we stop this research and continue to depend on an outdated resource that will eventually become too expensive to extract?
Finally, the article suggests DDT was banned because of “junk science,” merely because it hasn’t been shown to harm humans. This is absurd as DDT endangered already scarce predatory birds by weakening their eggshells and causing stillbirths. Though DDT is still used to a restricted extent to control disease, part of its danger came from the manner in which it was indiscriminately sprayed due to a lack of knowledge of its effects.
While it is admirable to combat “doomsday predictions” and support dissenting opinions in the name of science, it is also important to acknowledge proven facts. Simply disregarding what has already been presented by scientific research and common sense to fit an agenda is irresponsible. “Climategate” showed, above all, that scientists are human and therefore subject to prejudices. What it did not do is more than make fossil fuels a viable permanent energy source and invalidate more than a century of research.
Nathan Schaefer
