[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 16°F  
Feels like: 6°F
Friday, Feb. 24, 2017

Chicken Little

Posted Friday, October 2, 2009, at 7:29 PM

Most of us have heard of Chicken Little. The childrens fable featured our "hero" proclaiming that "The sky is falling, the sky is falling". In more recent times, Chicken Little has come to symbolize those that get hysterical over a mistaken belief that disaster is imminent.

Depending on which side of the global climate change fence you sit, what I'll call Chicken Little disease may have you believing that the end is near for our little planet, and that if we don't do something right away, we're all DOOMED!

Depending on which side of the political fence you ride, Chicken Little disease may have you saying that our current political leadership is taking us down socialism trail and we're all DOOMED.

Just today, somone summed up both of the above arguments in one of the Gazette's other bloggers comments section, and here is what they said... "The earth has cycles. Get over it and try to come up with a new reason to impose socialistic world order."

Based on the above comment, you could get the impression that global climate change, and a socialistic world order, are brought about by the same thing.

If you believe that global climate chance is a hoax, I'll not likely change your mind, but I hope I can challenge you to change my mind. Chicken Little told me personally that you need a place to live for personal survival before you worry about much else other than food and water.

I've heard and read a bunch about climate change, and trying to put it all together is well... rocket science. But I don't want you to take my word for it... I'd like you to read the same thing I did and then comment. I'll warn you, it will take you at least a couple hours to get through it, so I doubt many will take the time to learn a bit about the history of the climate change, and why the generalization argument made above about earth cycles carries virtually no weight... at least from my cited source.


The above source is the best single source I can offer, but I could dig up a lot of information for my side of the argument if wanted.

So come on! Bring it! Convince me that global warming is a hoax, but don't bother showing up with generalizations and no facts to support your position... I've shown my cards... now it's your turn!

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Interesting that you use the "Chicken Little" phrase, as I have always thought that Al Gore was Chicken Little in the climate change and global warming hoax.

Before I try and answer your question directly, let me suggest the following books and websites.

The Chicken Little Agenda: Debunking "Experts" Lies, by Robert Williscroft, PhD. Dr. Williscroft served a climate expert for NOAA for over twenty three years.

Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths, an excellent book from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

(cei.org) This is an excellent resource to step by step, line by line, to quash the phony arguments of the global warming hoaxers. In this book, they take on, quite effectively, the following myths:

A. Myth - Antarctica is melting due to global warming. Fact - Antarctica has been cooling - and its glaciers thickening - for the past thirty years.

B. Myth - Global population is growing faster than our ability to produce food. Fact - Global fertility rates are falling dramatically, and with advanced technology, farmers are producing more food using fewer resources.

C. Myth - Solar and wind power generators are a renewable, efficient, and less intrusive alternative than gas, oil, and coal burning generators. Fact - Global fossil fuel supplies are in no danger of being depleted, and a single 555 Megawatt natural gas power plant produces more electricity than 13,000 windmills.

And one book you may really enjoy Brian is The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, by Danish Scientist Bjorn Lomborg.

This guy was a former member of Greenpeace, and he challenges widely held beliefs that the world environmental situation is getting worse. He supports his positions with over 2500 footnotes, so you can check up on his facts. Lomborg takes on the way many environmental organizations make misleading use of scientific evidence. (Much the same way the fossil record is falsely interpreted to allegedly support Darwinism.) Lomborg has over four hundred articles debunking the global warming myth, and is a Professor at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. The University of Aarhus is ranked in the top 100 Universities in the World, and they have the Centre for DNA Nanotechnology, the Centre of functionally Integrative Neuroscience, the Centre for Geomicrobiology, and Centre for Quantum Geometry of Moduli Spaces, and others.


For several years, I worked for the government, yup, its true, as an investigator, and was involved in many court cases. I quickly learned that "experts" and "expert opinions" were almost always bought and paid for on both sides. Two experts looking at the exact same thing, both claiming to use years of education and experience, end up at complete and opposite sides, and swearing to it in court.

Much is the same with the global warming hoax. There are experts, both claiming to use years of research, and education and experience, to reach conclusions that are vastly different.

The problem is, our government, specifically liberals and the Obama Administration, want to alter the fundamentals of our country, and impose disastrous regulations and control over "we the people" based upon their side of the argument.

In the Courtroom example I used, a Judge has the difficult task of deciding which of the arguments presented are closest to the truth. Not an easy job. The Judge, or the average citizen, will have to rely on other evidence to reach the right conclusion.

That is where I point to Mr. Global Warming himself Al Gore. Dennis Miller has commented that if global warming were the actual disaster-in-waiting, as the leftist environmentalists claim, then Al Gore would be considered a monster.

Now Brian, you know that I am very admit towards my pro-life beliefs, as I have written about the evils of abortion heatedly. I have written with fervor, and with harsh words, with seemingly heartfelt beliefs. Now, what would you think if I turned out to be an abortion Doctor, and I was making these statements? You would rightfully conclude that I was disingenuous and a liar.

Al Gore, and his ilk, never have a problem flying jets all over the world to preach the dogma of global warming. Visit the sites of environmental demonstrations, and you see people who destroy property, leave trash and garbage behind, not very cool for folks SO concerned about the environment.

It was very well demonstrated between Bush and Gore, which man had the environmentally friendly home, with Gore's home using huge amounts of energy, and not being energy efficient.

If Al Gore, really believed that Global warming is going to kill millions of people, then he is worse than "a monster" (Dennis Miller's words) for wasting energy.

Let's not forget that Al Gore has made hundreds of millions of bucks promoting his hoax. Don't you ever wonder Brian, how all these anti-capitalists folks are enjoying their riches?

So then we are left with the politics of it all, aren't we?

The only time Brian, that I have ever got into and actual physical fight driving a truck was over a trucker bomb. Some truckers wizz in plastic bottles and leave them by the roadside. I hate that, more than I can put into words. I try and walk my dogs, and there is litter and trucker bombs about. I saw a guy leave one, and confronted him. We had words, it got ugly for a minute.

Don't think that because I am against the leftists in their attempt to change the USA from a Democratic Republic to a Socialist Union, that I am against clean air and clean water.

I have told everyone how the Lord has blessed my wife and I with three wonderful grandsons this year alone. I have eight grandkids, and I expect more!

I want a beautiful Earth, and USA, for them. I want a free Earth, and a free USA too.

I think you'll find Brian, if you will honestly look at it, as you challenged me to do, you'll see that it is the left...the leftists, that refuses to compromise.

I will hug a tree my friend, today, and everyday, if we will start using nuclear energy more. I will support solar power, and even windmills, if the left would let us us our own natural resources.

Thanks Brian, and I am truly happy that you are reading my blog again. I hope we can enjoy some spirited and meaningful debates. God Bless.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Sat, Oct 3, 2009, at 1:57 PM

Mr. Hoag, if I might also offer that these same doom and gloom folks were running around in 1975 claiming that we were headed for an ice age. As Sam has lamented repeatedly, it never ends. Sam, thanks for a well presented answer to Mr. Hoag's challenge. I know we all want clean air and water. Freedom is the only way.

-- Posted by RMontana on Sat, Oct 3, 2009, at 5:46 PM

RMontana - Yep... my cited source aboved speaks quite a bit to the claims of global cooling in the 70's, and I remember it well myself, but here is a partial quote from my cited source since I know it's a long document and it could be missed...

Through the 1960s and into the 1970s, the average global temperature remained relatively cool. Western Europe in particular suffered some of the coldest winters on record. (Studies in later decades found that a quasi-regular long-term weather cycle in the North Atlantic Ocean had moved into a phase in the 1960s that encouraged Arctic winds to move southward there.)(16) People will always give special attention to the weather that they see when they walk out their doors, and what they saw made them doubt that global warming was at hand. Experts who had come to suspect greenhouse warming now began to have doubts. Callendar found the turn worrisome, and contacted climate experts to discuss it.(17) Landsberg returned to his earlier view that the climate was probably showing only transient fluctuations, not a rising trend. While pollution and CO2 might be altering the climate in limited regions, he wrote, "on the global scale natural forces still prevail." He added, however, that "this should not lead to complacency" about the risk of global changes in the distant future.(18)

There is a lot more supporting information and documentation you may have missed if you didn't read the cited source. I hope you will consider it more before making judgement based on what we both recall from back in the day.


Sam, it really is good to hear from you. I appreciate your response, though it's not quite what I'd hoped for. Your information sources are not readily accessable for comparison for most of us unfortunately, and we leaped to the political side of things pretty fast but that's OK.

For the record, though I hadn't planned on talking about Al Gore and his brand of environmentalism, I am no fan of Al and despise the hipocritical actions underneath his argument. Al's type of environmental activism creates uncertainty as it causes people with a brain to question the motives just as you do and rightly so. When Al's motives appear money motivated, who would believe it?

I'd like to see safe nuclear power in everybody's back yard converting water into hydrogen, solar and wind that isn't government funded and makes sense, and a host of other things. You see, there are a lot of things we agree on. On the other hand, I believe there are some factors not fully considered when talking about wholesale extraction of resources for example.

I'm pretty certain that you have some pretty strong feelings about cap and trade. I don't have an good informed opinion yet, but this blog is an attempt to get input and get more documented information about climate change.

A lot people out there believe as I do that the legislation is more about potential environmental conditions and not about control. To make an intellegent decision, you have to agree that knowing the facts are the key to making good decisions. For the record, I don't like what I've read so far about cap and trade, and think there is likely a much better way, but I need to understand the backround to get to that point.

I have not, nor would I ever insinuate that you or anybody else here wants anything other than clean air and water. Where we seem to differ somewhat is what we believe is the underlying motives behind the climate change debate and all that it entails.

One other point you brought up...

I think you'll find Brian, if you will honestly look at it, as you challenged me to do, you'll see that it is the left...the leftists, that refuses to compromise.

I've mentioned my feelings about bipartisanship in a previous blog, and I agree there is little compromise. Most of the compromise I see is within both sides consolidating their influence. Democrats are in control by popular vote and have little reason to compromise.

We have a duty to be informed and let our representatives know how we feel, unfortunately I think we both would agree that there are far too many folks willing to take what they read and hear as fact without checking the facts behind the rhetoric.

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Sat, Oct 3, 2009, at 11:20 PM

A few final words...

First I want to respond to Sam about the Myth/Fact statements he posted in his response.

Sam said...

A. Myth - Antarctica is melting due to global warming.

Fact - Antarctica has been cooling - and its glaciers thickening - for the past thirty years.

Brian answers...

There is a lot of scientific data available that speaks to this generalization about climate change and human influence especially regarding Antartica. Here is a link to more information for those willing to understand the issue from a more scientific perspective than an ideology based determination.


I'd like to say that Sam has a valid point that each side has it's "experts" to "validate" position. Ultimately you and I have to decide the facts presented.

Sam Said...

B. Myth - Global population is growing faster than our ability to produce food.

Fact - Global fertility rates are falling dramatically, and with advanced technology, farmers are producing more food using fewer resources.

Brian answers...

This myth/fact has nothing to do with human influenced global climate change that I can tell. I'm not saying the statements Sam made are false, though there is some data that calls into question sustainable advances in farming. The same is true with fertility rates.

Sam's last example...

C. Myth - Solar and wind power generators are a renewable, efficient, and less intrusive alternative than gas, oil, and coal burning generators.

Fact - Global fossil fuel supplies are in no danger of being depleted, and a single 555 Megawatt natural gas power plant produces more electricity than 13,000 windmills

And my last response...

This myth/fact statement pair is much the same as "B" above. While the statements are true, they don't address current human influenced climate change, and in fact completely ignore the basic issue about carbon emissions and their effect.

I think Sam effectively presented his, and many other folks feelings about the environment and their perception of what is happening.

So my conclusion is...

The argument in present form can't be decided. Why? Because a lot of folks out there like me want/need to understand the root cause of the debate, while those with like minds to Sam are ideology based. It truly is comparing apples to oranges.

One thing is certain, if it wasn't for carbon and other man made potentially harmful emissions, this argument would not be happening. I hope you consider what all is at stake.

It's up to you to decide.

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Mon, Oct 5, 2009, at 12:19 PM

Thanks Brian for getting back to this. I am sorry I did not respond until now. I have had some surgery lately, (nothing serious) but I am behind in my research.

I want some time to really review the things you have talked about.

I think that you are of the mind that we should all work together and reach some common ground. You and I laid out some fairly reasonable arguments, and yet, not too many folks seem to want to get into the nuts and bolts. I wonder why? Too complicated? I know I have to use brain power to try and absorb it all and be informed.

In the next few weeks, I am going to seriously take some issues, and discuss them to see if there is room for compromise. I will of course, be interested in your opinion.

Blessings- Sam

-- Posted by sameldridge on Wed, Oct 7, 2009, at 2:25 PM

I hope you get back to 100% in no time Sam.

I think the reason most folks don't get wrapped up in researching is the amount of time it takes for the minimal gain of knowledge aquired. I bet most folks are like me and have a tendency to pay closer attention to specific sources we have developed a "relationship" with. Whether it be for basic information, entertainment, or opinions, we let our "trusted source" analyze the mountains of information and come to conclusions simply because we don't have the time to do it ourselves.

For example, I utilize wikipedia.org as my primary source of basic information as I trust the source. In the back of my mind, I know that wikipedia has been scammed with false information, but for the most part I trust the information it presents. At least they seem to have a self correcting format and the comments are often enlightening on related topics and present both sides of an issue for the reader to ponder.

I usually try and base my discussions on common sense, but I've been known to step outside that realm now and then. I have no doubt your blog will continue to stimulate folks one way or the other, and I plan on being right in there.

God Bless You Too

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Wed, Oct 7, 2009, at 5:24 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

The City Slickers
Brian Hoag
Recent posts
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Hot topics
Welcome To The Party Comrade
(0 ~ 10:44 AM, Oct 26)

Sticks & Stones
(1 ~ 8:07 PM, Oct 22)

With Apologies To Dogs...
(0 ~ 2:03 PM, Oct 8)

See the Pope, Quit Your Job
(0 ~ 2:13 PM, Sep 25)

Where I Stand
(5 ~ 9:29 AM, Jun 10)