Global warming is not about science, but about politics - that is, about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere ~ Libertarian Charles Kadlec explains the global climate change conspiracy theory in a 7/25/2011 Forbes Op/Ed.
Conservatives like to tell us that no matter what humanity does, the earth will persist. We can continue to pollute our atmosphere by burning fossil fuels indefinitely without restraint, because the earth will adapt. Global warming denier Willis Hart echoes this sentiment in a 5/2/2013 post titled "Adaptive Seasoning"...
|Willis Hart: The earth is essentially a living organism, and living organisms mostly adapt. Yes, a fair amount of carbon dioxide has entered the atmosphere... but there has not, NOT, been a runaway greenhouse effect. There hasn't... because the planet has a way of healing/cooling itself via an increase in cloud cover... a derivation of the increases in water vapor... (5/2/2014 AT 9:00pm).|
Willis Hart refers to himself as a Moderate because he supports marriage equality and raising taxes back to the Clinton-era rates (but only because the national debt is so high, otherwise he'd be opposed. The wealthy already shoulder an unfair/high percentage of the tax load, and he has written MANY posts expressing his displeasure about this fact). But the Hartster's opinions on other matters more often than not are decidedly conservative in nature.
As I've referred on this blog before, as of late Mr. Hart's posts have largely been of the global-climate-change-denying variety. I've responded to a few of them (with posts on this blog), but he authors so damn many that refuting them all is not something I really care to spend as much time as it would take doing. Unlike him, I like to blog about other subjects. I've decided to respond to this one, however. Because, this one, I believe, does a good job of illustrating why I believe Willis is a Conservative at his core (as are Libertarians).
Conservatives (or Libertarians) believe quite strongly in the "survival of the fittest" Darwinian notion that the poor have only themselves to blame for their lot in life (with few exceptions), and that the rich got rich because they work hard and are generally better people than the rest of us. This explains why Mr. Hart takes exception to suggestions that the rich aren't paying their "fair share" when it comes to taxes (they earned it, they deserve it, and they should keep it). It also explains his fervent denialism when it comes to global warming.
The wealthy making money hand over fist while destroying the planet could be considered morally objectionable - if what they were doing was actually destroying the planet. But deny this fact and the moral issue is eliminated. While it is true that humans can't destroy the planet - because, as Mr. Hart points out, the earth is very much like a living organism. It can and will adapt. That isn't at issue. What is at issue is if the earth "adapting" will result in a planet that is less hospitable for humanity.
Mr. Hart contends (in his post) that the earth will adapt in a way that makes it possible for humanity to continue on as normal; that we can continue to spew as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we please (Yes, please build the Keystone XL pipeline so the carbon dioxide from Canada's extremely dirty tar sands oil can be spewed into our atmosphere).
Why, isn't that considerate of earth, to take humanity into account whilst adapting? I don't know about you, but I doubt the earth cares whether the human species continues on or becomes extinct. That it would is a notion is utterly laughable.
Mr. Hart theorizes that more water vapor in the air (due to seawater evaporating as the planet warms) leads to more clouds which results in more of the sun's rays being reflected back into space. The earth is taking care of this global warming problem for us, in other words (how considerate of earth!). Now you may say, "this theory sounds good, but is it true"?
Unfortunately it is false according to a 2010 study published in the journal Science which reveals that water vapor in the atmosphere actually contributed to global warming. Although a decrease in this water vapor since 2000 explains a slowdown in the warming.
|Research... suggests that almost one-third of the global warming recorded during the 1990s was due to an increase in water vapor in the high atmosphere... [but] satellite measurements... show that water vapor levels in the stratosphere have dropped about 10% since 2000. When the scientists fed this change into a climate model, they found it could have reduced, by about 25% over the last decade, the amount of warming expected to be caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. (Water vapor caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals by David Adam. The Guardian 1/28/2010).|
That temperatures are flattening out over the last decade has been a staple of Mr. Hart's argument against climate change. Scientists say they aren't sure why water vapor levels are decreasing, but the phenomena certainly does not disprove climate change. This explains why we have not, not, not, NOT seen a runaway greenhouse effect... yet. As for more water vapor causing increased cloud cover (and counteracting global warming), another study published by Science disputes that as well...
|A... study published in the July 24 issue of Science [says] The data showed that as the Pacific Ocean has warmed over the past several decades... low-level cloud cover has lessened. That might be due to the fact that as the earth's surface warms, the atmosphere becomes more unstable and draws up water vapor from low altitudes to form deep clouds high in the sky [and] those types of high-altitude clouds don't have the same cooling effect. ...Low-level clouds tend to dissipate as the ocean warms... "That would create positive feedback, a reinforcing cycle that continues to warm the climate", says Amy Clement, a climate scientist at the University of Miami and the lead author of the Science study. (In a Warming World, Cloudy Days Are a Boon by Bryan Walsh. Time Magazine 7/24/2009).|
So there you have it folks, another "the climate change scientists are hoodwinking us" post by fanatical denialist Willis Hart rebutted. And now we know why he does it too. He wants us to not worry and be happy as the wealthy elites rake in the moola selling dirty fossil fuels. Charles Kadlec is correct in that one side of this debate takes the stance they do in order to expand the power of the elites, but it is the side preaching denialism, not the other way around!
This also explains why Mr. Hart rails against green energy technology. The wealthy elites will make money in that field as well, but why cut off their windfall from fossil fuels prematurely? No need to even consider it if earth has our back and will take care of the warming problem for us. Perhaps we should send a gift basket to express our gratitude? What do you think me-buck?
Image Description: Diagram showing 4 of the 5 principal layers of earth's atmosphere (the 5th layer, which is not shown, is the exosphere).