MENU

“Green” Science Is as Bogus as “Scientific Socialism”

Send to Kindle

By Walter Donway

February 17, 2019

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

“Catastrophic climate change” is no more than the latest in a long line of phony “scientific” arguments to replace capitalism with socialism.

In response to  East Hampton’s decision to ditch electricity generated by fossil fuels, go “renewable,” and support the first offshore “wind farm” on the East Coast, Walter Donway has published six letters in the East Hampton Star. This is the most recent.

In 1880, Friedrich Engels described Karl Marx‘s theory of the communist state as “scientific socialism.” The term had been coined some 40 years earlier by socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. This letter makes the point that “catastrophic climate change” is no more than the latest in a long line of phony “scientific” arguments to replace capitalism with socialism.

February 8, 2019

To the Editor:

I empathize with those calling for a halt to wind farm plans. Ideological environmentalists have persuaded our town officials to make commitments critical to us all—energy, its reliability, its financial costs, its impact on our environment and cost to local industries—based on a “case” not local at all.

Instead, the case is in terms of a sweeping global hypothesis about climate patterns over the next 75 years or more. With 100-plus computerized “climate models” churning out these predictions, laymen are invited to butt out of the debate.

At the same time, the alleged “scientific consensus” on the “climate catastrophe” hypothesis is advanced by proponents of town plans for our energy future. It is a frustrating way to talk about our hamlet’s needs.

The Green New Deal resolution presented to Congress proposes a socialist America, an economic dictatorship—as a climate measure.

The same thing is happening to America at large. The Green New Deal resolution presented to Congress proposes a socialist America, an economic dictatorship—as a climate measure. Of the two classic forms of socialism—communistic (public ownership of the means of production) and fascistic [National Socialism] (nominally private ownership with total dictation and regulation)—it is the fascist model that is proposed.

Incredibly, although “climate change” is invoked, the core issue—in the Green New Deal and our local deal—is supposed long-term, accelerating, catastrophic sea-level rise.

So we have the latest in a long string of rationalizations for ending capitalism, economic freedom, the market economy: we must control the sea level. Marx said capitalism must go because it causes wars and impoverishes the worker. The “Limits to Growth” movement said capitalism must go because we would exhaust key national resources by the year 2,000. Neo-Marxism says capitalism must go to solve our race, sex, gender, ethnicity, nationality issues. Now, it is to control the rising seas.

There is no consensus on long-term climate catastrophe. No consensus on the threat of sea-level rises. They are just actively debated scientific hypotheses that environmental ideologues have catalyzed into political crises.

The most recent major report on sea levels comes from Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee. Her grant support has been from the National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, the Defense Department, and Department of Energy. Curry serves on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.

In November, Dr. Curry released an 80-page assessment of sea-level rise and climate change.

She writes: “Why have I devoted so much time to the sea level rise issue? First, I regard sea level rise to be the most consequential potential impact of predicted global warming. Second, there is a great deal of public confusion about the issue, including decision makers.

“Why do I think an independent assessment of the sea level rise issue … is needed, given the plethora of international and national assessment reports? There has been a focus on the possible worst-case scenario for global sea level rise. … These extreme values of possible sea level rise are regarded as extremely unlikely or so unlikely that we cannot even assign a probability. … [But] barely possible values of sea level rise are now becoming anchored as outcomes that are driving local adaptation plans.”

Her conclusions in the briefest possible terms:

“There is no consistent or compelling evidence that recent rates of sea level rise are abnormal in the context of the historical records back to the 19th century that are available across Europe.

“There is not yet convincing evidence of a fingerprint on sea level rise associated with human-caused global warming.

The recent acceleration in mean global sea level rise (since 1995) is caused by mass loss from Greenland that appears to have been larger during the 1930s …

“The recent acceleration in mean global sea level rise (since 1995) is caused by mass loss from Greenland that appears to have been larger during the 1930s …

“In many of the most vulnerable coastal locations, the dominant causes of local sea level rise are natural oceanic and geologic processes and land use practices. Land use and engineering in the major coastal cities have brought on many of the worst problems …

“Local sea level in many regions will continue to rise in the 21st century–independent of global climate change. …Values exceeding 1.6 meters require a cascade of extremely unlikely to impossible events, the joint likelihood of which is arguably impossible.

“[Levels of]rise are contingent on the climate models predicting the correct amount of temperature increase … the climate models are predicting too much warming for the 21st century, and hence the more extreme values of sea level rise (above 1 meter) are arguably too high.”

This is not a scientific debate into which East Hampton must wade in planning its energy future. It is not a debate in which the East Hampton electorate can join. We only can be panicked by constant intimidating threats of the type “our civilization is at stake” and “our grandchildren will curse us.”

Town governments should not get into the energy business. Let the energy industry do its job.

Town governments should not get into the energy business. Let the energy industry do its job. Let us make local planning decisions based on local factors that we all understand.

It appears that on the national scene we are going to have plenty of grand ideological debates tied up with a green bow of environmental science.

 

Walter Donway

 

 

(Visited 441 times, 1 visits today)