Today, while signing an executive order that would provide taxpayer money to researchers to kill human embryos in order to use their tissues for stem cell research, President Obama said of his action, "It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."
That's great. Why don't we apply that guideline across the board?
We can begin with stem cell research.
Though certain embryonic stem cells have been available to researchers for years, not one viable treatment or cure has resulted from that research.
On the other hand, adult stem cell research is already providing promising treatment for stroke, brain injury, spinal cord injury, diabetes, heart disease, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and much more.
With these facts in mind, wouldn't our money be better spent funding adult stem cell research?
Or take global warming. Global warming has now been renamed "climate change", because it's become increasingly difficult to sell the notion of "global warming" to a population dealing with one of the coldest winters in decades.
The extravagant, pork-filled spending bill that was pushed through Congress has earmarked over $78 billion to fund projects to combat "global warming" and "climate change". President Obama has proposed a "cap-and-trade" carbon tax that would destroy some industries, under the excuse of controlling carbon emissions that contribute to "global warming". And toxic mini-fluorescent lightbulbs are being foisted on us under the excuse of saving the planet from "global warming".
It seems that everyone in proximity to a microphone, from environmentalists to politicians to celebrities to has-beens, is trying to snooker us into believing that (1) the earth is growing significantly warmer, (2) this climate change is occurring solely due to man's presence on the planet, and (3) this is somehow a bad thing.
The more extreme viewpoint holds that rather than being part of the ecosystem, man is an intruder — a virus, if you will — whose very presence is contaminating the planet.
These people cite computer models which indicate that if we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, the temperature will rise two or three — or perhaps ten — degrees in the next hundred years. No one really knows, because the results of their computer models vary greatly and do not point to a single disastrous result, as proponents would have us believe.
Curiously enough, the geniuses who created the models failed to take into account the effect the sun has on our temperature. How do you suppose they've failed to notice that the sun heats the earth??
The plain fact of the matter is that global warming alarmists are cherry-picking their data. Here are just a couple of examples:
We have been warned that "most models of global warming indicate that the Greenland ice might melt within thousands of years if warming continues." [Reuters] Most? Might? If? Isn't that just a bit vague? And that's presupposing that "global warming" is fact, not fiction. We are bombarded with propaganda about the polar ice caps shrinking — but we are not told that it's only at sea level that the glaciers are melting; the ice cap on Greenland is actually thickening.
In his movie, Al Gore claims "global warming" is causing the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro to melt. However, according to the International Journal of Climatology (a more reliable source than Mr. Gore), the reason there's less snow on Kilimanjaro is because clear-cutting of the rain forest is responsible for reduced snowfall. Yet Mr. Gore's solution to this problem is for me to drive my car less. And that will address the problem of clear-cutting Asian rain forests. . . how, precisely?
We are told that man is responsible for the earth's changing climate. However, according to the Danish National Space Center's report entitled The Persistent Role of the Sun in Climate Forcing, sunspot activity and solar climate are responsible for changing climate here on earth.
If the notion of global warming is such an incontrovertible fact, why do its advocates hide scientific data that does not support their theory?
Even if we were to accept the theory of man-made global warming, who decided that the current climate is ideal? Higher temperatures would mean longer summers, more arable land, longer growing seasons, lower heating costs — all of which are actually quite beneficial.
These so-called experts focus on western civilization — more specifically, the United States and our affluent society — as the root of all evil, while giving Asian nations, which are the greatest polluters, a pass. They would have us believe that only by giving up all our modern conveniences can we stop the threat of global warming.
In point of fact, one volcanic eruption spews more toxins into the atmosphere than the accumulated contamination of all of mankind, and one solar flare affects weather on earth more than anything man could possibly do.
Perhaps Obama's directive that " we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology" should be practiced across the board? I'm sure if those scientists who endorse the theory of man-made "global warming" were to look at their data objectively, rather than through the distortion of ideology, they would arrive at a far different conclusion.
I wholeheartedly agree with the president! Let's base all scientific research on facts, not ideology!
That's great. Why don't we apply that guideline across the board?
We can begin with stem cell research.
Though certain embryonic stem cells have been available to researchers for years, not one viable treatment or cure has resulted from that research.
On the other hand, adult stem cell research is already providing promising treatment for stroke, brain injury, spinal cord injury, diabetes, heart disease, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and much more.
With these facts in mind, wouldn't our money be better spent funding adult stem cell research?
Or take global warming. Global warming has now been renamed "climate change", because it's become increasingly difficult to sell the notion of "global warming" to a population dealing with one of the coldest winters in decades.
The extravagant, pork-filled spending bill that was pushed through Congress has earmarked over $78 billion to fund projects to combat "global warming" and "climate change". President Obama has proposed a "cap-and-trade" carbon tax that would destroy some industries, under the excuse of controlling carbon emissions that contribute to "global warming". And toxic mini-fluorescent lightbulbs are being foisted on us under the excuse of saving the planet from "global warming".
It seems that everyone in proximity to a microphone, from environmentalists to politicians to celebrities to has-beens, is trying to snooker us into believing that (1) the earth is growing significantly warmer, (2) this climate change is occurring solely due to man's presence on the planet, and (3) this is somehow a bad thing.
The more extreme viewpoint holds that rather than being part of the ecosystem, man is an intruder — a virus, if you will — whose very presence is contaminating the planet.
These people cite computer models which indicate that if we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, the temperature will rise two or three — or perhaps ten — degrees in the next hundred years. No one really knows, because the results of their computer models vary greatly and do not point to a single disastrous result, as proponents would have us believe.
Curiously enough, the geniuses who created the models failed to take into account the effect the sun has on our temperature. How do you suppose they've failed to notice that the sun heats the earth??
The plain fact of the matter is that global warming alarmists are cherry-picking their data. Here are just a couple of examples:
We have been warned that "most models of global warming indicate that the Greenland ice might melt within thousands of years if warming continues." [Reuters] Most? Might? If? Isn't that just a bit vague? And that's presupposing that "global warming" is fact, not fiction. We are bombarded with propaganda about the polar ice caps shrinking — but we are not told that it's only at sea level that the glaciers are melting; the ice cap on Greenland is actually thickening.
In his movie, Al Gore claims "global warming" is causing the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro to melt. However, according to the International Journal of Climatology (a more reliable source than Mr. Gore), the reason there's less snow on Kilimanjaro is because clear-cutting of the rain forest is responsible for reduced snowfall. Yet Mr. Gore's solution to this problem is for me to drive my car less. And that will address the problem of clear-cutting Asian rain forests. . . how, precisely?
We are told that man is responsible for the earth's changing climate. However, according to the Danish National Space Center's report entitled The Persistent Role of the Sun in Climate Forcing, sunspot activity and solar climate are responsible for changing climate here on earth.
If the notion of global warming is such an incontrovertible fact, why do its advocates hide scientific data that does not support their theory?
Even if we were to accept the theory of man-made global warming, who decided that the current climate is ideal? Higher temperatures would mean longer summers, more arable land, longer growing seasons, lower heating costs — all of which are actually quite beneficial.
These so-called experts focus on western civilization — more specifically, the United States and our affluent society — as the root of all evil, while giving Asian nations, which are the greatest polluters, a pass. They would have us believe that only by giving up all our modern conveniences can we stop the threat of global warming.
In point of fact, one volcanic eruption spews more toxins into the atmosphere than the accumulated contamination of all of mankind, and one solar flare affects weather on earth more than anything man could possibly do.
Perhaps Obama's directive that " we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology" should be practiced across the board? I'm sure if those scientists who endorse the theory of man-made "global warming" were to look at their data objectively, rather than through the distortion of ideology, they would arrive at a far different conclusion.
I wholeheartedly agree with the president! Let's base all scientific research on facts, not ideology!
© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment