Geoscientists: Al Gore should stop with the ‘oil sands threaten our survival as a species’ talk

Al Gore Climate Change

It was less than a month ago that NPR’s Bill Moyers and Canadian scientists shared their fantasies about throwing global warming … climate change … climate disruption skeptics in prison. Who would have known that the targets Mr. Moyers’ police state dream would be geoscientists.

James Taylor of Forbes writes:

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

Weird. I’ve never seen a discussion of this study on NPR.

Have geoscientists been paid off by a shadowy conservative organization led by Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty”? Is the oil industry shoving wads of cash into the geoscientists’ pants to get them to say what the energy industry wants? If they are corrupt, wouldn’t that mean that other scientists would be just as open to changing their views if it meant getting another year’s worth of grants from the right government agency?

For the purposes of this blog post, we’ll assume scientists are almost all totally honest because that is what Bill Moyers and David Suzuki wanted us to believe when they discussed the logistics of tossing guys like me into a deep dark dungeon. (Mr. Moyers will deal with those turncoats at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration later — how dare they report that 2013 had the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982!)

In light of this recent skepticism displayed by geoscientists, it’s probably safe to say that they would tell Al Gore to cool it on the doomsday rhetoric.

Organizational Studies quotes the former Vice President as saying:

With more than 15% higher GHG emissions than conventional oil, the [Canadian] oil sands have been categorized as particularly ‘dirty’ oil (Nikiforuk, 2008) and have become the ‘whipping boy of European and American green groups fighting the “Great Climate War”’ (Sweeney, 2010, p. 160). Al Gore builds on this by stating that the “oil sands threaten our survival as a species” and “Junkies find veins in the toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent” (Sweeney, 2010, p. 168).

The oil sands of Canada threaten our survival as a species. Gotcha. In the mind of Al Gore, the big threat to humanity isn’t the guys who want to create a giant Islamic caliphate in large expansive sandy regions of the Middle East (while slaughtering thousands in the process) — it’s the engineers trying to squeeze oil out of sand in Canada so you can enjoy widgets and gadgets that make life in 2014 really comfortable.


Militants from the al-Qaeda-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. (Associated Press)
Militants from the al-Qaeda-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. (Associated Press)

What makes the doomsday predictions and the calls to imprison skeptics even more bizarre is having to read New York Times articles that attribute a 15 to 20 year pause in global warming to “luck.” How very scientific of you, New York Times.

As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming.

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.

The point is that the “settled science” of Climate Change isn’t “settled,” at least not to the extent Al Gore’s “solution” (i.e., give the federal government complete control over entire industries and turn over billions of dollars to a federal Leviathan) should be explored.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I think do some further reading on things like liquid fluoride thorium reactors — the kind of scientific research that Al Gore never talks about.


Bill Moyers, scientist fantasize about locking up Americans who question climate change

Obit Shriver Wake

FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that he is “suspicious” of the federal government and that American should be as well. Why would he say that? There are a number of reasons, but one of them might be because there are men who think like Bill Moyers and geneticist David Suzuki running around the halls of Congress and occupying chairs in the administrative state.

The Daily Caller reported Tuesday:

Canadian geneticist David Suzuki urged Western governments to lock up politicians who question man-made climate change, telling PBS’ Bill Moyers “our politicians should be thrown in the slammer for willful blindness!”

Suzuki appeared on “Moyers and Company” earlier this month to express his abject frustration over politicians, in both Canada and the United States, who refuse to accept the “settled science” on man-made global warming.

“Our politicians should be thrown in the slammer for willful blindness!” he asserted. “If we are in a position of being able to act, and we see something going on and we refuse to acknowledge the threat or act on it, we can be taken to court for willful blindness.”

It’s a good thing that modern science can be “settled” with computer models that have shown to be wrong time and time again. It’s a good thing that modern science can be “settled” by the brilliant (i.e., corrupt) minds who brought us The University of East Anglia “Climategate” scandal. It’s a good thing that modern science is “settled,” even though there’s a gigantic ball of exploding gas that affects our planet in countless ways we still don’t fully comprehend.

Scientist PBS
Remember when FDR rounded up Japanese people and threw them in internment camps? Well, I want to do that sort of thing again, but I want the prisons to be more diverse. And I want to do it in Canada as well. Score!

Regardless, it is always refreshing when men like Mr. Suzuki come straight out and tell the world that their hearts are filled with totalitarian urges. It’s merely hilarious when a guy like Bill Moyers interviews a wannabe tyrant and essentially says, “I’d totally be down with that if the numbers were small enough to do it without drawing too much attention to ourselves.”

“The problem is, if that should happen — if politicians were to be convicted to willful blindness to the fate of the Earth and future generations — there would have to be mass arrests, and lots more funding for new prisons,” he noted. “We’re not talking about a mere handful of culprits. It’s hard to know where to start,” (Bill Moyers — aka, guy who would love to circumvent the rule of law and imprison people who disagree with him if he didn’t think it would get too messy.)

Here’s what I said after visiting the Virginia Living Museum (where I learned that the region has been under water many, many times over millions of years) Oct. 7, 2013:

There is no doubt that the climate “changes.” The question is: How big of a role does man play? Is it big enough to warrant the redistribution of wealth — to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars — from the private sector to a bureaucratic Leviathan? Answer: No. Is shaving a few degrees off computer models that even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now admits are flawed worth the price in individual liberty? Of course not.

To David Suzuki and Bill Moyers, that is apostasy. Globalwarmingclimatechangeclimatedisruption (one word) will not be questioned. It is “settled,” and those who are suspicious of the solution (i.g., consolidating power into the hands of an “elite” group of master minds along with massive transfers of wealth to their friends, family and political allies) must be silenced.

There are many good scientists out there, but there are also many authoritarian thugs (and authoritarian thug wannabes) who have abandoned the old camouflage fatigues for white lab coats. In countries like the United States, it is much harder to control the population by force (thank God for the Second Amendment), so the only option is to get the individual to willingly abdicate his freedom and individual liberty. Now that science has become its own religion for many people, the statists have found countless ways to take advantage of the situation.

Keep questioning. Always question. And when a thug like David Suzuki makes it known that he’s the type of guy who would have cheered on Japanese internment camps when FDR (the left’s Moses) was in office, call them out on it every time. We should never allow for the theft of individual liberty, but if it’s going to happen we should not allow ourselves to become so passive and self-absorbed that it happens in broad daylight.