No Catastrophic Global Warming

Writes Professor Bob Carter a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research in the UK Telegraph:

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

[...] In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

[...] Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. [...] scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research.

[...] The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming. ["There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998", Bob Carter, UK Telegraph, 9 April 2006]

 

 

Free Speech and the Danish Cartoons – A Panel Discussion

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 (7:30pm - 10:30pm); University of Southern California, Davidson Conference Center, Embassy Room

Confirmed Panelists: Dr. Yaron Brook, Ayn Rand Institute, Dr. Daniel Pipes, Middle East Forum.

The Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed have sparked a worldwide controversy. Death threats and violent protests have sent the cartoonists into hiding and have had the intended effect of stifling freedom of expression. The reaction to these cartoons raises urgent questions whose significance goes far beyond a set of drawings. What is freedom of speech? Does it include the right to offend? What is the significance of the worldwide Islamic reaction to the cartoons? How should Western governments have responded to this incident? How should the Western media have responded? These and related issues will be discussed by panelists from different backgrounds and perspectives. A questions-and-answers period with the audience will be included. Please note that the cartoons in question will be displayed at the event. Respect for the discussion forum will be strictly enforced. For more information, contact: USC Objectivist Club

UN Security Council Abets Iran’s Nuclear Program

IRVINE, CA--"The UN Security Council's call on Iran to halt its nuclear program will not stop Iran, but actually abet its pursuit of nuclear bombs," said Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"It is absurd to think that any UN admonishment could derail the belligerent theocrats in Teheran. The Security Council's feeble statement gives them yet more time to continue building their bombs.

"This perverse gambit perpetuates the myth--inherent in the failed diplomatic efforts that preceded it--that Iran's leaders will listen to reason. But the ruling mullahs are religious mystics orchestrating a terrorist war on the West. To combat this avowedly irrational enemy we must retaliate by force. The time for military action against Iran is long since past."

NYU Caves in To Muslims’ Pressure

IRVINE, CA--Yesterday, in a shameful act, NYU broke its own official policy and denied free speech to its students.

After having approved the display of the Danish cartoons for a panel discussion on free speech, NYU's administration reversed its decision in the face of Muslim protests.

A day before the panel discussion was to take place, NYU gave the student event organizers a non-negotiable ultimatum: if you display the cartoons we will close the event to non-NYU guests. This was in spite of the fact that NYU's own rules leave this decision to the student sponsoring organization.

And even though the students opted for not showing the cartoons, NYU barred entry to at least two journalists and more than 30 registered guests. Even after learning that Muslim students had sabotaged the event by acquiring and destroying two hundred tickets to leave as many seats empty, NYU officials still refused to allow non-NYU guests to enter.

In caving in to fear, in restricting and obstructing attendance, in forbidding the display of the Danish cartoons, NYU handed a victory to the Islamic totalitarians and their facilitators. In standing up to the destroyers of free speech, the NYU student sponsors of the free speech panel showed the courage that the NYU officials lack.

NYU’s Surrender Underscores Need to Display Danish Cartoons

Irvine, CA--"In a seemingly mundane decision, New York University has sacrificed the principle underlying its flourishing and the survival of civilization--free speech," said Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute. NYU is refusing to protect a student group's right to display the Danish cartoons of Mohammad at a panel discussion on free speech on March 29. The group's event was to be open to the public, but at the last minute NYU retreated. Under the pretense of maintaining campus security, the administration contradicted its own stated policy on free speech by requiring that, if the cartoons are displayed, the event be limited only to "members of the NYU community." The student group now must turn away more than 150 members of the public who had planned to attend the panel.

"The university's shameful appeasement of Muslim and anti- free-speech groups--which have vowed to protest the event-- underscores the urgent need to display the cartoons in defense of freedom of speech," said Dr. Brook. "Free speech protects the rational mind: it is the freedom to think, to reach conclusions and express one's views without fear of coercion of any kind. And it must include the right to express unpopular and offensive views, including outright criticism of religion. NYU--which like other universities grants tenure to protect intellectual freedom--ought to recognize the crucial importance of this principle and defend it. "If intimidation and threats are allowed to compel writers, cartoonists, thinkers and institutions of learning into self- censorship, the right to free speech is lost. If Muslims are allowed to pressure critics of Islam into silence, critics of religion will be next. And then everyone else."

A Panel Discussion on Free Speech

Panelists: Peter Schwartz, former chairman of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute and author of The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America; Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education; Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims; and Jonathan Leaf, New York Press editor who resigned over his paper's decision not to publish the Danish cartoons. Moderator: Dr. Harry Binswanger, professor of philosophy and member of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute. What is planned: (1) A display of the controversial Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad. (2) A panel discussion and Q & A on the meaning of the worldwide reaction to the cartoons. Where: New York University, 60 Washington Square South at NYU Kimmel Center, Eisner and Lubin Auditorium (4th Floor), NY, NY 10012. When: March 29, 2006, 7 to 10 PM

Summary: ARI's Peter Schwartz will participate in a panel discussion on the Mohammad cartoon controversy. He will explain: Why the eruption of violence and the issuance of death threats make completely irrelevant the question of whether the cartoons are in bad taste. Why the idea that freedom of the press must be "coupled with press responsibility" means that free speech is not a right, but a fleeting permission. Why every Western newspaper and media outlet should have immediately re-published or shown the cartoons in solidarity with the cartoonists. Why the cowardly and appeasing response of many Western governments--including our own--will only invite further aggression. Other panelists will present their own views.

Respect Rights Not Beliefs

A great clarification by Nicholas Provenzo:

I don't respect Muslims for their beliefs. I respect the Muslims right to hold their beliefs (and harm no one but themselves in the process) but I have nothing but contempt for any code that damns existence on this earth in the name of the supernatural.

Voice of Capitalism

Capitalism news delivered every Monday to your email inbox.

Subscribed. Check your email box for confirmation.

Pin It on Pinterest