In Charles Krauthammer's May 30
must-read column, "Carbon Chastity," he rightly lambastes
environmentalists as resurrected communists/socialists who have latched on to
the environment and climate change as a means to advance their anti-people
The specific occasion for his justifiable outrage is a recent proposal by a
British parliamentary committee to institute a personal carbon ration card for
The plan would place limits on food and energy consumption in the form of
credits not to be exceeded — except through the potential for heavy-carbon
users, often the wealthy, to purchase credits from lower-carbon users, often
the less wealthy. In other words, their answer to global warming is wealth
Though I thoroughly endorse Krauthammer's condemnation of the plan, I have
to take issue with his adoption of loaded terms straight out of the green
lexicon to argue his point.
In trying to position his agnosticism on whether man-made CO2 emissions are
actually cause for concern, his column begins: "I am not a global warming
believer. I am not a global warming denier."
The term "denier" is the environmentalists' preferred means of
tar-and-feathering anyone who dares question climate alarmism — a key tactic in
their effort to dupe the nation into consuming the green Kool-Aid.
Environmentalists have convinced many in the mainstream media that
skepticism toward the very shaky science behind global warming alarmism is akin
to the indescribeably creepy views of anti-Semitics who deny that the Holocaust
One event is an indisputable historical fact of hideous dimensions; the
prophesied specter of catastrophic global warming, however, is just a politically
driven fear scenario based on unreliable computer models and the wishful
bending of the laws of climate physics.
There is no comparison.
Can anyone reasonably equate, say, the 31,000 U.S. scientists, engineers and
physicians who recently signed a petition against global warming alarmism —
including Princeton theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson and Massachusetts
Institute of Technology climatologist Richard Lindzen — with the likes of
neo-Nazis and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who constantly calls for
Surely Krauthammer doesn't intend to make any such equation, but his
adoption of the greens' most effective word weaponry nonetheless plays into
their thought-shaping rhetoric.
Even when embedded in an argument contrary to green policies, the word
"denier" still demonizes by summoning the vile immorality of those
who would deny crimes against humanity.
One also could build a case against man's "carbon footprint,"
another fiendishly effective green-sponsored image and a term Krauthammer uses
matter-of-factly even as he logically details the possibility that Earth's own
massive outpouring of CO2 very well may dwarf man-made carbon output into total
Let's consider a few facts.
CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas in the atmosphere that is measured in
parts per million, or ppm. The vast majority of CO2
emissions, about 97 percent, comes from Mother Nature.
CO2 is nowhere near the most important greenhouse gas; water vapor holds
that distinction. An astounding 99.9 percent of Earth's greenhouse gas effect
has nothing to do with manmade CO2 emissions.
If that's not enough, we can look at graphs of the historical
relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature. Ice core data
going back 650,000 years show that global temperatures increase before CO2
levels. Data from the 20th century indicate no particular relationship between
CO2 emissions and global temperature.
Finally, there is no scientific proof that the current level of atmospheric
CO2 or that levels projected by the United Nations — about 700 ppm by 2095 if
no greenhouse gas regulations are put in place — has or will cause any harm to
Alarmist gloom-and-doom forecasts also are based on nothing more than the
rankest speculation dressed up as computer models that remain wholly
Yet, despite all this lack of evidence, the solitary term "man's carbon
footprint" manages to concretize the notion of mankind producing indelible
damage upon the Earth while in the process of stampeding its flora and fauna.
For any effective critique of global warming hysteria, we have to move
beyond these powerful yet baseless buzz words that undermine any rational case
in which they are found.