Global Warming is a Hoax!

June 13, USA Today declared, "The Debate's Over: Globe Is Warming." That's another headline you can ignore.

The world has been warming ever since the last Ice Age, but it is not rapidly warming in ways that threaten our existence, nor warming in a way that requires the industrialized nations to drastically cut back on their use of energy to avoid the many scenarios of catastrophe the Greens have been peddling since the 1980s.

Global warming is a classic scare campaign initiated by the Greens after a previous effort in the 1970s to influence public policy by declaring a coming Ice Age failed to generate any response. What we are seeing now is yet another worldwide coordinated campaign by the Greens to rescue the global warming theory from the junk heap to which it should be consigned.

In early June, the National Resources Defense Council, one of the large Green organizations, declared that, "Global warming is fast becoming the number one environmental problem of our time."

It has organized an Internet campaign led by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Sen. John McCain, and other so-called environmental leaders to drum up the fears of people who know little of the real science of the Earth in order to force the US to implement the United Nations Kyoto protocol on "climate control." Anyone who thinks humans have any control over the Earth's climate is willfully ignoring the evidence that we have none.

The NRDC declared, "The world's leading scientists now agree that global warming is real and is happening right now. According to their forecasts, extreme changes in climate could produce a future in which erratic and chaotic weather, melting ice caps and rising sea levels usher in an era of drought, crop failure, famine, flood and mass extinctions."

Scary, eh? One huge volcanic eruption could do this. As to the weather, it is the very definition of chaos and has been for billions of years.

The good news is that leading climatologists and meteorologists are actively debunking this nonsense. One of them, Dr. F. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, is in the forefront.

He debunks a June 7 statement issued by several national academies of sciences just before Britain's Tony Blair arrived for talks with President Bush, saying, "The Statement simply regurgitates the contentious conclusions of the (UN) International Panel on Climate Change report of 2001, which has been disputed by credible scientists. The so-called scientific consensus is pure fiction."

Among the data he cites is the fact that, "Since 1940, there has been a 35-year-long cooling trend and not much warming in the past quarter-century, according to global data from weather satellites."

 

I have a good friend whose dad has a masters degree in meterology and a masters in computer engineering. The guy design computer systems that predict weather, he also did 25 in the air force doing weather. He knows weather as well as or better than anyone you or I can think of (and he is a conservative military guy). Well around 2000 I asked him aboout this warming stuff and he said it is no big deal. I saw him again in 2006 and he completely changed his tune. He says it is a huge problem it is very real and it is happening FAST. Further he claims that EVERYONE who knows weather agrees that this is a huge human caused problem. Weather guys who claim otherwise are getting a big payday from Exxon. That is all there is to it. Old Dan you are simply wrong on this.

 

This is simply not true and your friend may be a weather man, but he is sure stupid for making these kind of statements (if he made it).

Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet billions on 'global warming' predictions that have even less foundation? Simple as that.

 

Here you go Danr, this isn't just someone who plays around with computers and spent 25 years in the service. Good enough credentials for you old buddy?

Artical By Timothy Ball Ph.D

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

 

The globe is warming. Why some conservatives don't WANT to beleive, I honestly do not know. Could it be that they're brainwashed by people like our leaders who make big money off of destroying our environment?
Probably.
Do you honestly beleive that pollutants and the burning of fossil fules are not bad for the environment???
Seriously?

 

Danr, again you have let the things you want to believe overcome your ability to think. When nothing was at stake, your friend'd dad didn't think global warming was a problem. When it became critical to accept global warming in order to continue to be employed, he changed his mind. Nothing focuses your attention as much as losing your paycheck for thinking the wrong way. Just about nobody can obtain employment in the field these days without paying lip service to the global warming religion. There was a time when EVERYONE who knew anything about astronomy agreed that the earth was the center of the universe. It didn't make it right. Also, not to be offensive, but master's degrees in meterology and engineering don't even begin to provide your friend's dad with the expertise to make this sort of judgment independent of what he is told.

So lets review what is known and separate it from what is believed. The climate is getting warmer. This is a fact. Snow packs and glaciers are melting. But the oceans are cooler. This is a fact despite what you may have read and you can check it out by reviewing the actual ocean temperatures published by various sources. Few solar astronomers believe that humans are the cause of global warming, and this important profession is largely absent from the lists of scientists who signed onto the concept. They know from their calculations that the warming is due to the Sun putting out more energy than it has in the past 11,000 years -- the end of the last ice age. The earth is presently a little below the probable temperature in the year 1,000AD when there were people farming in Greenland and food production and population exploded around the world. From about 1350 to 1850 we had a mini ice age, when even New York harbor froze thick enough for horses and wagons to cross from Manhattan to New Jersey on the ice. Now it is getting warmer because it is supposed to be getting warmer. These things move in cycles. If you postulated in a science class in school that the earth is warming and CO2 is rising, therefore CO2 caused the warming, you would/should fail because you didn't follow the scientific method of proving cause and effect. Yet millions of people accept this as fact because the level of education is low enough now for the folks in authority to get away with it. About 96% of all CO2 is produced from decaying plants on land and in the sea. 2% is produced by man and 2% from other sources like volcanos. So it would be difficult for the actions of man to account for the change. There are also two problems with the data that you can ask your friend's dad about. First, it is assumed that rising CO2 produces rising temperatures. It is the core assumption of global warming, and even the authors of the UN report admitted under questioning that they made this assumption without the ability to confirm it as fact. But more CO2 also means more cloud cover, and clouds cool the earth by reflecting sunlight back into space. The computer models ignore this effect by design. Second, the computer models also assume that the burning of fossile fuels will continue to rise between 1% and 2% annually, even though the peak oil phenomenon seems to be kicking in about now and global oil production has been stuck at 85million barrels per day despite massive drilling programs around the world. Without increasing use of oil, the temperature doesn't rise in the models. So maybe this is about as warm as it's going to get. We are said to be getting more and more severe hurricanes. But as researchers at Colorado State have proved, the period from about 1970 to 2000 was one of an abnormally low number of hurricanes, and now we are getting back to what was normal prior to that time. Unfortunately, during the interim many nations around the world built up their coasts due to a false sense of safety, and now we are going to pay for the short-sightedness.

CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food. This might be the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind for the purpose of robbing them of their wealth and increasing the power of government. It's potentially the greatest power grab and reallocation of global wealth ever attempted since Roman legions and Ghengis Khan tried doing it the hard way. It plays on man's fears of unknown complexities and his hubris to believe that first, his actions can cause this sort of problem, and second that he can stop it.

Don't fall for it as so many have. It's going to ruin your life and future.

 

The only high level weather people who claim that GW is not a prob are getting a check from Exxon.

 

from

 

Yeah.

 

This is an old story. For every Phd. scientist you find that says global warming is bogus, there is one saying its real. So what? You bring this up,why? So you can have something to argue about. so what if we spend billions of dollars on studying this. Would you rahter have the government spend it on some third rate country? Or give it to you? If you think lowering carbon monoxide isnt a good cause to ''waste'' money on; then what is?

 

Yea, NYC and L. A. are just full of decaying plants. Stories and memiors of london during the Industrial revolution of soot all over the streets and walls, and clouds of carbon, just mustve been some shrubs dying.

 

This reminds me of a Popeye cartoon where members of the senate were donkeys and elephants. and when, lets say, an elephant proposed something all the elephants shouted, ''We're all for it!". and the donkeys would respond by yelling, "We're against it!". and vice versa. Thats all you guys do here. I liked the fact that Eisenhower warned us against too big of an army. And that Kennedy started the Peace Corps. that johnson pushed for civil rights. Nixon put a stop to rising milk prices; opened relations with China. and began SALT talks. I loved the effort of Carter to legalize marijuana. And that Reagan ended the Cold War. but you guys only see what your party wants you to see. you stand around all cocky with your noses in the air, like you're on to something. but then stop.. you look at the guys in our capital and say, ''Tell us what to do!''.. some or all of you who believe that global warming is a scare tactic probably think that the terror alert color indicator is a useful tool and not a scare tactic. and you other guys do the same thing. What gets accompished in here?

 

What got into your post toasties this morning?
At least we now know what you get your information (cartoons) and we know what you do while your readig them (good old Jimmy). So if the truth of the matter is known, very little gets accomplished around here when your dealing with immature merry-andrews!

 

Wow! Talk about being parochial! You may not believe this, but if you leave the city, most of the rest of the country is covered by plantlife. It's true! Unbelivable as it sounds, you can actually verify this yourself with an hour's drive in the car. And there is another unbelievable but true natural phenomenon called the jet stream! You may actually be breathing air from someplace else! Now I know this is a shock to you, but lie down for awhile and think about it.

Also, carbon is not pollution.

 

Climate change is very real, and coming to your neighborhood.

I'm surprised that some people on this board are still trying to foist off this notion that the issue of "global warming" is just a political ploy of left-wing radicals who are out for power and money. They promote the falsehood that people line up and support global warming or be fired... that there is some sinister conspiracy out there which is trying to take away the 'good life' they've been living for so long. They seem to cling to the old notion that the world is too big to mess up, that there's always more and better land out west when we degrade what we've got, and we can dump waste into the ocean forever because it's so big.

The FACT is that the power of humans to change the environment is very real, and this has been going on for quite some time. The history of our species has several key points at which resource depletion and environmental degradation caused the collapse of an advanced civilization. Every civilization may be characterized based on the way that is utilizes energy... for food, fuel, animals, machines etc.

To give but one example: The Roman Empire dominated much of Europe, Britannia, and the Mediterranean basin. A mainstay of the Empire was trade in olive oil, which was transported in large clay flasks called amphorae. The creation of those amphorae was a major industrial operation for the Romans. They were fired in wood-fueled ovens. The kilns were simple and easy to build. It takes about three tons of wood to fire one ton of clay, so the economics of the process dictated that clay was transported to the source of wood and never the reverse. If you sail along the Mediterranean coast of North Africa today, you will find a veritable desert landscape coming all the way down to the sea. But scattered along this coast are huge mounds. Upon examination you would find that these are mounds of broken amphorae surrounding the remains of a kiln, the discards from Roman era industrial pottery operations. The key point here is that if you look around, THERE ARE NO TREES. But there must have once been a source of wood or those kilns would not have been built there. So the lesson is that the Roman Empire, which was basically a wood and olive-oil powered civilization, failed, in part due to the overuse of its primary energy source. And that landscape has STILL never recovered... after over 1500 years!

The British empire was also wood-fueled. Wood is a renewable resource, as long as the rate of use does not exceed the rate of renewal.... which it did in seventeenth century England... and the empire nearly collapsed in the before switching to coal. Archaeologists note a deviation in the carbon-14 calibration curve about 5000 years ago, associated with the development of metal axes and the large-scale felling of European forests. An much larger deviation is associated with the rise of fossil fuel burning at the beginning of the "industrial revolution". The atmosphere was already beginning to change.

Our current civilization is essentially oil-fueled. Oil is cheap because it is a form of stored energy that has been sitting around for a long time. Oil is nicer than coal because it's easier to gather and transport, and cleaner... therefore we've based our entire social infrastructure upon it. The unintended consequences of that dependance include problems of resource depletion as well as atmospheric change. Oil is very clearly a non-renewable resource and every barrel used today is a barrel that is forever gone and unavailable to be used tomorrow. And of course, the burning of oil (or any carbon-based fuel) releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

So now we reach the contentious part of the issue... how much does the human-generated (anthropogenic) carbon-dioxide add to the natural or background amount of CO2? The first accurate measurement was taken in 1958, and indicated a CO2 concentration of 316 ppmv. Pre-industrial revolution concentrations are estimated to be about 280 ppmv, and the latest measurement is 377.3 ppmv. So that's an increase of 16% just since 1958, or about 25% since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Since fossil fuel carbon is completely depleted in C-14 while the production of C-14 in the upper atmosphere is relatively constant, the proportion of fossil carbon in the atmosphere can be measured quite accurately, and matches well with the above stated percentages. This portion of the so-called debate is undebatable, it is simply a matter of measurement.

The so-called debate hinges on whether this proven increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has had and will continue to have an effect on the global climate. Since that is a considerably more difficult question and can only be addressed with statistical and modeling data, the answers must always be expressed with some uncertainty. That is how science works... it is a search for TRUTH. The current level of uncertainty in this issue is about 10%... meaning that there is s broad concensus of something on the order of a 90% certainty that human environmental modification is leading directly to global scale change in the direction of increased warmth, and that the scale of the change is such that disruptions of normal patterns of economic activities will be adversely affected.

I tell you once, I tell you twice, I tell you three times. There is no political agenda implicit in giving this warning! It is a simple relaying of significant FACTS that can assist people in making decisions about their future.

I often wonder WHY some people feel so compelled to argue so vehemently against the notion that we humans have created this problem. I recall the dispatcher at Pearl Harbor who refused to relay the message from the radar station that a large flight of planes was detected coming from the north. He thought it was impossible, so he discounted the message. Is it simply the refusal to believe that we could have been so utterly wrong in basing our civilization upon a temporary souce of energy? Is it the refusal to believe that our patterns of living may have to change in order to adapt to a changing world? Have we become so complacent that we cannot bear to sacrifice a few comforts for the survival of the planet itself?

I personally take no joy in delivering this message... and quite frankly... I feel I've probably wasted my time writing it. I would love to be able to agree with the initial post and proclaim there's no problem... that there is unlimited oil everywhere we look and we can burn it all we want forever and ever without any problem whatsoever. I would love to be able to report that my grandchildren will inherit a world in better shape than the one we received from our parents. But that's not the case. The truth of the matter is that we've inherited some problems, and created some more, and now we're in pretty deep trouble and we're got a lot of work to do. If we don't acknowledge this and step up to do that work, then our civilization will fall, as the Romans did before us.

So let's just quit this blathering about whether or not there's even a problem. There is! The ONLY questions worth debating are those about what to do. Doing nothing is not an option.

 

The climate is slightly warmer than it was 30 years ago. Nobody disputes that. It is highly unlikely that humans are the cause, and nobody has proven otherwise. Carbon is not pollution. What you should be asking is why liberals WANT to believe in global warming without requesting proof. Asking the United Nations if this is a problem that requires a massive expansion of their powers to resolve is like asking the barber if you need a haircut. How did people become so gullible?

 

It's not about WANTING to believe this, it's about finally HAVING proof that our intuitive concerns are, in fact, based on reality. Many people have been concerned about resource depletion and pollution for a long time, and yet the corporate economic system chugged on and churned out more toys for us to play with, while degrading the quality of our lives. Sometimes such folks are called "environmentalists", which simply means that there is an underlying belief that the world we live in is important. We've endured the scorn of industrialists and developers and their spittle-licking lapdogs for generations, being called "greenies" and "tree-huggers" and worse. Now there is finally scientific data which strongly supports what we have suspected for years... that humans really are wrecking our precious and utterly unique planet through our own actions.

So yes, I recognize that there is a sort of vindication in finally being proven right, and therefore a willingness to adopt the issue. But it is bittersweet I assure you, because we all face the same threats.

And CO2 is indeed a pollutant, by definition, when it changes in a significant way the naturally occurring concentration. A 25% increase is certainly significant.

 

Global waming is a reality. A frog sitting in a slowly boiling pot does not even try and jump out. Why? Because he has a date with his girlfriend.

 

http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

Interesting Argument About Global Warming
Personally, I always thought the whole global warming thing was a little bit overblown. Got to admit this guy makes a very compelling argument without debating any details.

 

Tom, you are mixing various themes to confuse the issue. This is a common tactic. Resource depletion and pollution are separate issues from global warming. In fact, the preoccupation with global warming has directed attention away from critical issues such as peak oil, which is so serious that it may end Western civilization if not addressed soon. Some of use want more than "intuitive concerns" before reorganizing the entire economic system of the planet around the concentration of power in the hands of the folks who will "save" us. You don't really have any "proof" at all that the changes which have been measured are the result of human activity, at least not in the scientific sense of the word. You have a poll of people chosen by the United Nations to participate, with a variety of backgrounds who may or may not have deeply studied the issue, not too dissimilar from the polls in Coin Talk but on a larger scale. I think you are correct that people are desparate to belive in global warming because of the psychological need for vindication. I also noticed that while you don't like labels like "greenie" and "tree-hugger," you have no problem using a term like "spittle-licking lapdogs." This makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution. You are also correct that CO2 is considered a pollutant because it has been defined as a pollutant, not because it is. You can just as easily define a year as being 250 days long, but it won't change the time it takes for the earth to circle the sun.