Claims of significant anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 emissions are either overblown or completely unfounded. The greatest scientific fraud in the history of mankind is this “Global Warming / Climate Change” tandem. Any doomsday scenarios concocted on these theories are a scientific embarrassment that have as much credibility as Creationism, Refrigerator Gnomes, or the Late Iraqi Information Minister.
The Global Warming scam was designed to
1. Scare people into giving time, money and power to charlatan scientists and sham politicians
2. Dramatically increase the size and scope of government and proliferate a worldwide socialist agenda
3. Oppress developing Nations
Sadly, the scam is working.
This fraud was dreamed up by intellectually dishonest scientific professionals coveting government grant money: Was latched on to by politicians and political groups that seek to expand their own influence as well as the size and scope of government and is perpetuated by the ignorant masses who do not have the capacity to refute what Hitler coined the “The Big Lie.”
Billions of dollars in taxes, private donations and political contributions are raised every year to fight the global warming boogieman. This sham has taken many otherwise intelligent and good intentioned people and turned them into quasi-religious zealots on a crusade for a bigger, more intrusive, more powerful world government.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
* Al Gore is trying to resurrect his political life with Global Warming Scare Mongering.
* Virgin CEO Richard Branson has pledged $3 Billion to fight global warming.
* Billions of Taxpayer and education dollars are wasted each year in the name of global warming.
* People like to believe in significant anthropogenic global warming because it makes them feel good and lulls them into a sense of intellectually superiority.
When you follow the money and politics, it’s easy to see why this charade of smoke and mirrors is occurring. The “why” of the scam is a thesis in and of itself. However, it’s more important for Global Warming Awareness 2007 to shed the light of truth on the debate to dispel many of the myths surrounding the climate change debate. Grab your popcorn or delicious this for later, because we have a few “incontinent Truths” of our own to cover and this is gonna take a while.
Global Warming Awareness 2007, Here comes the Science . . .
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 1.
The Earth is 1, 2, 5 or 10 degrees warmer than it was 100 years ago.
Truth: At most we’ve had an average 0.6 degree C (and probably closer to 0.3 degree C) increase over the last 100 years.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 2.
“I know Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring because it’s warmer here in _____. I know it’s warmer, I can feel it.”
Truth: Just because it may be warmer where you are, doesn’t mean that the Earth’s temperature is changing globally; and it certainly does not mean that any climate change is occurring because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Anecdotal testimonials in a microcosm are not scientifically valid.
As we pointed out, the average global temperature increase has been between 0.3-0.6 degrees over the last hundred years. That works out to 0.003-0.006 degrees per year; a change that is certainly imperceptible without instruments.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 3
CO2 levels and the average Global Temperatures are near all time highs in Earths history.
Truth: We have records of CO2 and temperatures going back *millions* of years, and we presently have some of the lowest CO2 levels in the same amount of time; before now, CO2 levels have been several orders of magnitude higher… all without human intervention. Also, the earth’s temperature was dramatically warmer. Guess what, doomsayers? The earth has natural CO2/temperature cycles and climate science is only just now starting to put some of the bigger pieces of the puzzle together.
Check out Milankovitch Cycles to learn more about these natural cycles.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 4.
There is evidence that a rise in CO2 has led to a rise in Global Temperatures throughout millions of years of the Earth’s history.
Truth: Here is the graph of Temperature levels and CO2 Levels.
The double graph, reproduced below lists CO2 concentration above temperature: but, if the two graphs were superimposed at sufficient scale, as is customary when comparing such similar curves, changes in temperature would be seen to precede changes in CO2 concentration by 400 to 4,000 years.
Can anyone explain to me why CO2 level rising lags about 800 years behind the temperature rises?
While correlation does not equal causation (contrary to what these global warming shysters would have you believe) the logical conclusion is NOT that higher CO2 Levels cause an increase in Global Temperatures, but rather that global temperature increases cause a rise in CO2 levels. These graphs also show that CO2 in and of itself is incapable of sustaining temperature growth.
If their “CO2 causes significant global warming” theories were correct we should see temperature levels increasing after rising CO2 levels – not the other way around.
It looks more like CO2 is what the planet uses stunt temperature upsurges and cool back off after an interglacial period.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 5
Receding Ice Sheets is proof that anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring.
Truth: Here are some photos showing the shrinking of Glacial Ice Sheets.
They sure look like they are shrinking, don’t they? Problem is, those are pictures of the Glacial Ice Caps on Mars. Yes, they are shrinking, but one could hardly argue it’s because of some US soccer mom driving an SUV. There are no humans on Mars.
Caltech planetary scientists have been keeping a close eye on the dozens of deep, wide pits in the southern martian ice caps. These pits have been growing larger every year, but they never get any deeper.
The scientists believe this means that there is a layer of dry ice that is evaporating off of a thicker layer of water ice. The yearly increases in evaporation may be caused by
A global warming trend happening on Mars (Source NASA)
The residual martian south polar cap is changing. The fact that it is changing suggests that Mars may have major, global climate changes that are occurring on the same time scales as Earth’s most recent climate shifts, including the last Ice Age.
If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change.
So, we know the sun is getting hotter. We know that it is warmer on Mars. It is also warmer on Earth. How does one look at those facts and come up with “I think the Earth is warmer because Jane drives a Hummer”? Get a grip people!
If there is Global Warming on Mars, doesn’t that indicate that a significant portion, if not all, of the 0.3-0.6 degree C increase in the Earth’s average temperature over the last 100 years is being caused by the sun or other cosmic forces that have nothing to do with humans?
Oh and by the way, Earth’s Antarctic Ice sheet is actually growing.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 6
CO2 is the most significant Greenhouse Gas in Earth’s Atmosphere.
Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC’s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 7
Only Bible Banging Creationist and big oil lobbyist deny anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing significant global warming.
I am an Atheist leaning agnostic. Evolution is as good as fact in my book; there is no missing link. I don’t own a dime in oil stocks and have never worked for nor received any money from any lobbying group. I’m neither anti-environment nor against renewable energy ideas like Biodiesel or Solar Tower power stations. The world could go 100% solar powered tomorrow and I’d stay just as happy as a pig in shit.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 8
So and so says it’s true so it must be
Truth: Follow the money. In Science there is a saying “No Problem, no funding.”
I’ve read what the Royal Society has published about anthropogenic global warming. It’s an embarrassment: nothing but conjecture, glad-handing, postulates and guesses. Where is the Science?!? Where is the evidence that concretely demonstrates that an X increase in atmospheric CO2 leads to a temperature increase of FunctionX on a planetary scale? Nowhere! Because this type of evidence simply does not exist. All we have are rigged computer models that fail at even the most rudimentary attempts to predict climate or weather changes and “scientists” referencing those models as if they were somehow bastions of truth and authority.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 9
Human caused C02 emissions will cause a temperature increase that will melt the ice caps and flood all coastlines in the next 50-100 years.
I call Bullshit.
When someone can predict the temperature range (high and low) for the 50 largest cites in the world 30 days out to within a half of a degree of accuracy, then maybe I’ll listen to what they have to say about the average global temperature 50 years from now. Until then, we’ll just have to agree to disagree about whether or not these climatologists and meteorologist know what the hell they’re talking about.
You think these scientists can see 100 years into the future? 100 years ago, there was a different environmental concern. People worried that we needed to come up with a solution for all the horse shit from the increase in the number of horse and buggy carriages in major cities. Here are some of the great predictions of the past.
Trying to predict what’s going to happen even this year is an exercise in futility. Remember how 2006 was supposed to be the biggest hurricane season on record? How’d that prediction turn out? Thinking that one can predict 100 years into the future goes beyond the wildest stretches of absurdity into pure insanity. Alas! Fools seem to love giving these psychics their money; nothing I say is going to stop them.
For me, I’ll put my money where my mouth is and buy some nice beachfront property. Why don’t you global warming zealots put your money where your mouth is and buy a nice cabin in the mountains somewhere? Then in 50 years we’ll look at whose property is worth more to see who was right.
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 10
If real we can do something about it
According to NASA, the average global temperature has risen only 0.3-0.6 degrees over the past 100 years. Even if 100% of this warming could be attributed to mankind’s CO2 emissions (which, as we have demonstrated, it cannot), none of the proposed “solutions” would decrease worldwide CO2 levels, none of them would stop or significantly curb this alleged cause of anthropogenic global warming (if it is occurring) and most of these big government “solutions” would dramatically degrade the quality of life for the poorest and most impoverished people on Earth.
Indeed, the risks of handing power over to politicians who clad themselves in the global warming cloak to spread their socialist agendas far out ways any danger associated with anthropogenic global warming or “climate change.”
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Myth Buster 11
Global Warming is bad for the human race.
Truth: The Warming of the earth has coincided with prosperity and development. Periods of frost or cold have caused global famine, periods of stagnation and economic recession. A warmer earth and more CO2 means more plant life, greater farm yields and worldwide prosperity. It’s quite amazing how closely economic cycles have tracked increases and decreases in the average global temperature.
And before you throw out your ad hak attacks, the one thing I can say for those two intelligent people is that are not chasing Global Warming Funding Dollars or coveting political influence. Can the same be said for whomever you site?
GlobalWarming Awareness2007 Conclusion:
The overwhelming evidence is that manmade CO2 emissions account for only a fraction of the mere 0.3-0.6 degree rise in temperature over the last 100 years – if at all. Even if mankind accounted for all of it (we don’t) and we could accurately predict (we can’t) that mankind would quadruple that temperature increase over the next 100 years (we probably couldn’t even if we wanted to), it would not be cause for concern. History has demonstrated time and time again that a warmer Earth will mean greater prosperity for mankind. So in fact, the best we can hope for is that these doomsday prophets are correct and that we will somehow raise the Earth’s temperature for the sake of our great grandchildren. Unfortunately for them, the bulk of the genuine scientific evidence suggests that these Global Warming charlatans are spouting nothing but hot air.
Comments are closed. To add your thoughts, send a trackback.
Considering the kind of winter we’ve been having, it shouldn’t be a suprise that global warming is the ‘hot’ topic of the day, second only to Iraq. That discussion is probably the biggest area that science and politics mix on, and they don’t mix very well. So now enter into the fray Weather Channel climatologist Dr. Heidi Cullen, who hosts a weekly show called “The Climate Code”, where she brings stories of climate change and what humans can do about it. This past week on her blog she managed to publicly let her political feelings mix with her science, and as expected, it wasn’t a good mix:
Capitalweather.com, a website for hard-core weather junkies in the DC area, recently published an interview with a local meteorologist that highlights the unfortunate divide that exists right now between the climate and weather communities. Yup, that divide is global warming. When asked about the science of global warming, the meteorologist responded:
“The subject of global warming definitely makes headlines in the media and is a topic of much debate. I try to read up on the subject to have a better understanding, but it is complex. Often, it is so politicized and those on both sides don’t always appear to have their facts straight. History has taught us that weather patterns are cyclical and although we have noticed a warming pattern in recent time, I don’t know what generalizations can be made from this with the lack of long-term scientific data. That’s all I will say about this.”
In an interesting follow-up blog on the reason for this all too common global warming contrarianism within the broadcast meteorology community, journalist Andrew Freedman suggests local TV meteorologist may want to look to the American Meteorological Society for guidance. Freedman goes on to point out that the AMS has in fact, issued a statement on climate change that reads:
“There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change.”
I’d like to take that suggestion a step further. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. (One good resource if you don’t have a lot of time is the Pew Center’s Climate Change 101.)
Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It’s not a political statement…it’s just an incorrect statement. I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political. But that’s why talking about the science is so important!
See why science and politics is such a lousy mix? How could any scientist actually call for basically ending the careers of others that don’t agree with them? To me, that’s more about her politics than her actual scientific opinion. Science is all about a good dose of healthy skepticism, and clearly when it comes to the subject of climate change/global warming there are many on both sides who either support in full that human activity is the reason why the planet is heating up, and there are those that either think humanity’s impact is not as great as advertised in the mainstream media, or think that the planet is going through it’s own natural cycles of heating and cooling, something the planet’s been doing only for a mere four billion years(an example of that healthy skepticism that Dr. Cullen wants to quiet can be found here).
And it’s not as if Dr. Cullen’s call for decertifying global warming skeptics is anything new in the scientific community. As MIT Professor of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen noted in an op-ed published on OpinionJournal.com back last April:
So how is it that we don’t have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It’s my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton’s concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann’s work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested–a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community’s defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences–as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union–formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton’s singling out of a scientist’s work smacked of intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists–a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an “Iris Effect,” wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as “discredited.” Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming–not whether it would actually happen.
So even though attempts at intimidation of global-warming skeptics are nothing new, it seems as though Dr. Cullen’s blog post has awaked many people to the fact that such intimidation is taking place(based on the comments section of her blog which is plenty full of people outraged at her call to decertify skeptics). One meteorologist even took time to write up a nice rebuke of Dr. Cullen which the Birmingham News covered here. It also may be the case that the Weather Channel’s shift to the left on climate change and production of Dr. Cullen’s show may not be scientific in purpose.
So now that a full-blown controversy has erupted, and has turned people on to the fact that the Weather Channel may be taking sides (which could cost them viewers and sponsorships), the spin cycle on Dr. Cullen’s call to decertify skeptics has started in earnest. Dr. Cullen herself posted a reply this week to try and quell the uproar, claiming she doesn’t want to silence skeptics, but she never refutes in plain english her previous call to decertify them, either(and she can’t deny she didn’t call for it, since clearly she did). She laments how ‘political’ the discussion has become, yet her blog links to an editorial post on Scientific American which slams everyone on the Right with the usual leftist ‘anti-science’ slander, and in turn they link to another blog that goes hardcore left and proceeds to echo Al Gore’s “global-warming deniers” slur, while both blogs chalk the uproar over Dr. Cullen’s decertify call to a ‘orchestrated freeper conspiracy’(as though no one else would be concerned about an attempt at censorship and intimidation). If Dr. Cullen and her fellow global-warming alarmists are just scientists who are lamenting the polticization of the issue, they sure have a funny way of showing it.
Now given that I’ve been an avid student and fan of Meteorology, and given Dr. Cullen’s mea culpa that she is ‘just a scientist’, I’d like to try to give her the benefit of the doubt. However, given her recent comments and the fact that there appears to be some evidence she’s a bit more political than she lets on, I’m sorry to say you can count me among the ’skeptics’ of Dr. Cullen’s motives. No matter what you believe about global warming, a call to decertify skeptics of the science should give even pro-global warming advocates a ‘chill’.