Dennis Prager

October 26, 2011

Man-made global warming: Why many of us are skeptical [Part 1]

By Dennis Prager

Tweet

Share

In the belief that there are people on the left who are more interested in understanding the right rather than in simply dismissing its decency, I would like to briefly explain why many thoughtful people are skeptical of the claims made on behalf of global warming. By “global warming” I am referring to the claims of Al Gore that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are causing dramatic increases in the Earth’s temperatures; increases that will devastate much of the Earth.

Many of us don’t believe the Al Gore thesis for three primary reasons:

1. There are thousands of scientists in climate science and other scientific fields — some of them among the most distinguished in the world — who do not agree with the Al Gore thesis. One is Richard Lindzen, the atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, widely regarded as America’s leading climatologist. Lindzen has written that “It is generally accepted that a doubling of CO2 will only produce a change of about two degrees Fahrenheit if all else is held constant. This is unlikely to be much to worry about” and “The basis for the weak [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.”

Another is Freeman Dyson, one the world’s most admired physicists, who in 2009 told The New York Times Magazine, “The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models. ... They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models.”

Other major skeptical scientists are listed here.

2. They, and many others, point out the obvious fact that throughout the history of the Earth, far more dramatic climate changes have taken place. Greenland was once green, and Iceland was once ice. At one point, the Earth had an ice age and has since warmed considerably — all without one human being living on it, let alone emitting carbon dioxide.

3. We see this doomsday scenario as only the latest in a long line of left-wing hysterias — every one of which turned out to be either fraudulent or wildly exaggerated, and propagated for reasons having little to do with science, but labeled as “science.” When you are wrong 12 out of 12 times, others are not inclined to radically change America’s and the world’s economies by betting that you are right on the 13th.

Here are the three of 12 other left-wing hysterias that have proven false. (Because of space limitations, I have divided this column into two parts, the second of which will appear in these pages on Nov. 11):

1. Nuclear Power

Though strongly opposing fossil-based energy, the left has also opposed clean nuclear energy. The stated reasons? Nuclear energy is not safe because it can leak radiation and because we do not know how to safely dispose of nuclear waste.

This became hysteria more than 30 years ago when the left made the 1979 nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania synonymous with terrible danger from nuclear reactors. Yet, not one person died as a result of Three Mile Island, and exposure to radiation was next to zero.

Even the worst nuclear power disaster in history, the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster, which was entirely a result of Soviet incompetence and lack of concern for its citizens, was far less injurious than the drama around it suggested. As of 2006, 20 years after the disaster, according to the United Nations: “Only 56 people have died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl … .”

For the left, such numbers are unacceptably small. Thus, the environmentalist group Greenpeace rejected the United Nations numbers and released a report at the same time declaring that many tens of thousands of people will have died from Chernobyl.

2. Anorexia

Two prominent feminist writers, Gloria Steinem and Naomi Wolf, wrote in their best-selling books, “Revolution From Within” and “The Beauty Myth” — and the news media reported — that 150,000 girls and women a year die of anorexia nervosa. The number is about 200.

3. Silicone Breast Implants

Another left-led hysteria concerned alleged serious dangers of silicone breast implants to women’s health. Feminist and other ideologically driven groups led a campaign to have the implants banned despite the lack of scientific evidence to substantiate their charges. The campaign was successful. In 1991, a California jury awarded $7.3 million to a woman with mixed connective-tissue disease — despite testimony by her doctor that she had showed symptoms two years before getting implants. And the Federal Drug Administration banned the implants in 1992. It wasn’t until 2006 that the FDA bowed to the overwhelming scientific evidence, and reapproved silicone breast implants.

In Part 2, I will list another eight doomsday scenarios of the left, all of which have been promulgated as scientific by the sympathetic news media, and every one of which turned out to be false.

Dennis Prager’s nationally syndicated radio talk show is heard in Los Angeles on KRLA (AM 870) 9 a.m. to noon. His latest project is the Internet-based Prager University (prageru.com).

A version of this article appeared in print.

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

So rather than go look at some facts, you go on about some of the more loony aspects of the left. If you want to go down that path, why would you support the right with their extremist anti-Semitic groups.

Go back to school and learn to write a decent argument.

Comment by Tru on 10/26/11 at 6:38 pm

I bet Al Gore and plenty of liberal scientists think the planet is round, too, but I don’t hear anyone calling that an ‘Al Gore thesis’.  Which is good, since it predates Al by nearly 1000 years.  But then, the basic radiative physics of the greenhouse effect predate Al by about 100 years, and the first global assessment of the effect of a doubling of CO2 on temperature predates Al by about 50 years.  So what gives?

Comment by Anthony Westerling on 10/26/11 at 8:43 pm

Looking at the linked list of skeptics and deniers, I wouldn’t call them ‘major scientists’, at least not in fields that would make me think their opinions were particularly relevant to the discussion.

Comment by Anthony Westerling on 10/26/11 at 8:47 pm

Most of my professional colleagues are, like me, quiet skeptics. We don’t want to get involved & get smeared by global warming advocates .

There are many low cost steps one can take to avoid and/or minimize the effects of global warming shouldit be real.

Unfortunately,supporters of global warming deny the major uncertainty in the data (when I led a Caltech study on local conditions some years ago reliable measurements even for an area as small as LA County for a period of 10 to 15 years were impossible to come by).

As a modeler I understand the numerous limits of models.

Remember, fame, research grants, faculty appointments etc. go to those who support global warming

Comment by HOWARD LAITIN on 10/27/11 at 12:07 am

“As a modeler I understand the numerous limits of models.”
———————————————

That’s why climate scientists don’t consider models to be the primary evidence linking CO2 and global-warming.  The primary evidence is hard paleoclimate data (ice cores, sediment cores, etc.)

I’d like to recommend that folks grab a cup of coffee and spend an hour watching this video of NAS member Dr. Richard Alley presenting a lecture at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting a couple of years ago: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

After you’ve finished watching the video, ask yourselves how many times Alley referred to climate models in his lecture.

Comment by caerbannog on 10/27/11 at 7:39 am

According to the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders, 8 million Americans( 7 million women and 1 million men) suffer from eating disorders.

Their data reveal that within 10 years of being diagnosed with anorexia, 7.5% (600,000) die and even more ominously, within 20 years of being diagnosed with anorexia, 19%(1,520,000) die of anorexia and associated disorders.

This National Association is nonpartisan, with its sole mission being to stop the deluge of deaths that are flooding our country from anorexia.

Comment by marc rogers on 10/27/11 at 11:15 am

I know I promised to refrain from making any comments on this site, but the undereporting of such a deadly disorder needs to be corrected to insure that as many people as possible get treatment and avoid a premature death.

Life and death, at least to me, are not a political football to be kicked for a touchdown.

Life and death are truly a nonpartisan issue.

Comment by marc rogers on 10/27/11 at 11:22 am

I think it is only a limited subset of leftists that oppose nuclear energy: those to whom governments’ fossil fuel incomes are more important than the lives of the citizens. They often conceal their motivation from themselves by falsely asserting that fossil fuels are subsidized, but do not try to explain why, if this is true, highway speed limits are not strongly enforced.

Similarly, a limited subset of rightists hypocritically assert that man-made global warming is a crock because they care more for private fossil fuel interests’ wellbeing than that of all the citizens.

Of course, bad rightists may love governmental
petrodollars, and bad leftists, private ones, too.

Comment by G.R.L. Cowan on 10/27/11 at 1:21 pm

“After you’ve finished watching the video, ask yourselves how many times Alley referred to climate models in his lecture.”

I watched Dr. Alley, he did a masterful job.

His life, like my life ,is full of models. As historian he knows that the history of science is that there is a theory that all the data fits into that offers some explanation and some projection Then, something new arises and the theory is discarded for something better.

What he presented is a model. Models don’t have to be computer-driven. They are an organized set of theories and observations. That which explains the most and is the simplest is usually the most accepted

Comment by HOWARD LAITIN on 10/27/11 at 4:40 pm

Various times in my professional work my “model” was at the forefront of scientific acceptance, then something new was discovered, and the understanding was improved and science moved on.

In policy one always asks “what if I am wrong?” and “what if I don’t act now?”. What I tried to point out is that if man made global warming actually exists and if global warming will be on the net harmful, then there are various low-cost, low impact actions one can take now to buy the insurance policy. It is unfortunate, that in the debate , these options are not prominent.

Comment by HOWARD LAITIN on 10/27/11 at 4:42 pm

Keith, that is not only false, it is a blatant lie. I am reporting your lies to the Jewish Journal and forwarding your libel to the police for examination.

I have NEVER been accused or arrested for anything. You must have a different person with my name.

Why you would blasphemy and besmirch my long and productive career helping people truly sickens me- and should sicken others.

Do libelous lies now pass for meaningful dialogue?

Comment by marc rogers on 10/27/11 at 5:14 pm

China and India are making a mockery of man made global warming. China will be producing 4 times as many GHGs as the US by 2017 and India is ramping coal power at a rate that will soon surpass US GHGs too. Cap and trade is useless and carbon taxes are useless. Nothing will change until there is clean energy at a cost of 5 cents/kWh and climate debate is a waste of time.

Comment by Sundance on 10/27/11 at 5:19 pm

Denis Prager is a cretinous version of Glenn Beck and this proves it.

He is agenda driven, not fact driven, and seeks to take the reswt of us down with him. 

Even his “refutations” are extremely specific (on a detail…Lindzen), or vague (Dyson).  He doidges the question and defends those who would continue to pollute for their own gain.

When the diverse people agree that the writer is intellectually dishonest, you know that he must be off base,

He does not ask if we can afford to be wrong, or that we should take steps anyway because cleaner air is better.

What an embarrassment Prager is.  I suppose he would argue against evolution too.

Comment by The Logician on 10/27/11 at 5:20 pm

Is this going to be another discussion which is interesting until Logican shows up and pollutes it.  Given his record of distortion if he would claim the earth is round I would worry that he would then brand anybody who said “round” as cretinous since we all know that the earth is not perfectly round. Please, for all our sakes , crawl back in your hole.

Comment by CHRISTIAN SERVICE WORKER on 10/27/11 at 5:35 pm

STOP THE WORLD.Joybook and Logician want to get off!!!

Is that eating disorder group non-profit?  Are they looking for funding?

Comment by Honey Bee on 10/28/11 at 11:58 am

Please forward your article to Marty Kaplan

Comment by jeff grunfeld on 10/28/11 at 12:50 pm

I have no dog in this hunt, but I checked out the eating disorder group and while they are a nonprofit, they receive no public funds. In addition, as a computer novice, but a lover of statistics, I crosschecked the eating disorders numbers with those of the American Psychological and American Psychiatric Associations numbers, and they are pretty darn close.

It would appear that this eating disorder organization is the real thing . Please feel free to check out all the numbers from these three organizations if you have any doubts.

It appears on this matter, at least, Mr. Prager is way off and flat wrong.

Comment by gene mayer on 10/28/11 at 1:26 pm

Prager’s argument in a nutshell:

(1) Left-wing politicians think man-made global warming is a serious problem.
(2) Left-wing politicians are always wrong.
Therefore, (3) man-made global warming is not a serious problem.

Comment by Guy on 10/28/11 at 2:55 pm

So Joybook start the trend and remove yoursef,or have you already reproduced

Comment by Honey Bee on 10/28/11 at 3:37 pm

My species?  Joybook darlin I’m a Honey Bee!  Honey Bees are good until you anger them.

Comment by Honey Bee on 10/29/11 at 8:58 am

Someone is accusing me of being something I am not, never will be and to sink to that level is repulsive. I would die before I hurt a child.

Someone is framing me for my political viewpoints and trying to ruin my reputation and life.

I have contacted the Jewish Journal and the police.

This act of revenge for differing political views is beyond words.

Comment by marc rogers on 10/29/11 at 8:28 pm

The proof that I am being set up is that I have never spelled my name MARK- it is always with a MARC.

What type of person would hurt an innocent person for differing political views?

Comment by marc rogers on 10/29/11 at 8:32 pm

Thank you, Joybook. Thank you for being a mensch.

Comment by marc rogers on 10/29/11 at 9:04 pm

Let’s all get back to the real issue:

Dennis Prager is intelletually dishonest. He desperately tries to build the weak arguments against climate change and never addresses the real issues.

Like any far right wingnut, he gets more ink than he deserves, and embarrasses the Jewish tradition of rigorous intellectual pursuit of important issues.

He is a henchman for the wealthy who want working people to pay more taxes, in order to subsizidze those who live only for the moment.

Heal the world?  Dennis defends a world view that is cruel, inhumane and hypocritical.

He’s a self-promoting tool.  Re-examine his other extremist views.  You lie down with dogs like this…you get fleas.

Comment by The Logician on 10/29/11 at 9:16 pm

Commenting is not available in this section entry.