UNCW Professor Lawrence B. Cahoon in a letter to the Wilmington Star-News editor titled, “Consequences of global warming real,” reveals his bias toward alarmist views predicting unfounded cataclysmic world events. He also damages his professional credibility when he says that we skeptics “offer nothing but nonsense.”

Within the general public—increasingly skeptical (and suspicious) of the bizarre, reckless claims of natural and “human crises” predicted to happen in the next 100 years—many scientists and those of us with science training can be counted.

Despite Prof. Cahoon’s insulting accusations that we subscribe to conspiracy “fiction” and have “paranoid delusions,” strong evidence exists that “global warming” activism is politically- rather than scientifically-driven.

Not surprising, government agents and scientists that thrive on government funding largely support the fears and dire predictions that dominate press stories and propaganda from political/environmental operatives. It’s disappointing when people who claim to be scientists buy into pseudoscience. It exposes their activism, but shows they have lost their intellectual capacity.

Virtually all the hype and hysteria about the subject has been based on four reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dating back to 1990. (The prestigious-sounding group was hatched up by European environmental activists starting with World Earth Day in 1970, gaining momentum in conferences during the 70s and 80s and promoted by “three chief ideologues.”) The 1995 report was “notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by scientists,” according to the late Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society. Further, the IPCC ignored many research papers and “additional scientific results.”

Thousands of non-government scientists have joined the growing list of people that strongly suspect this is an international hoax—the “mother of all environmental scares,” as one “skeptic” has noted. The IPCC is said to be “pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypothesis of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases.”

Americans not pre-programmed can find scientifically-backed evidence to support skepticism (and the above quotes) in the reference:

S. Fred Singer, ed., Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2008 (www.heartland.org).

. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.