Global Warming: A Lot of Hot Air
Disaster makes news, the absence of disaster does not. Peruse a random blog, and you'll no doubt hear things like: "There is no such thing as a counter argument to global warming." followed up by: "The real problem is that we must ignore these pseudo scientists." I'm always curious why such an open-and-shut case so often cites misrepresented and subjective "facts." Let's take a look.
Climate models, the single greatest proof of impending disaster, are entirely subjective. Wassily Leontief, a Nobel Prize winner for climate modeling said about climate models: "We move from arbitrary assumptions, to elegantly demonstrated but irrelevant conclusions." In Science magazine, they innocently quip: "In climate modeling, everybody cheats a little."
Meteorologists have been the brunt of jokes for years because they can't accurately forecast tomorrow's weather, but we take their 100-year predictions as biblical fact. Remember the hurricane forecast for 2006? It was supposed to be bad. Real bad. Silly me, I believed them. I hit the grocery store in June and stocked up on Ravioli and water bottles. Swing and a miss.
But wait, aren't those carbon dioxide levels increasing? Uh-oh. But wait, there's more. Scientists actually believe that carbon dioxide levels at some point on earth were at least twice what they are now. We won't mention how much better plants thrive in higher concentrations of carbon dioxide. Oh, and that greenhouse thing that gets pounded into the heads of first-graders in public school, that's another thing. It's rarely mentioned that the earth's "greenhouse" is made of around 98% water vapor. Not to mention that nature emits carbon dioxide regularly through decay of plants and animals. Nature is the biggest polluter, and accounts for at the very least 94% of daily carbon dioxide emissions, just barely beating out the United States for the title. That's right, by the most liberal of estimates, humans of the world account for less than 6% daily, into an atmosphere that is 98% water vapor. We're in big trouble.
Global warmers just hate when people try and mention climate history. Such as 900-1300AD, aka, the "medieval warm period," in which temperatures were most likely warmer than they are today. Vikings prospered on Greenland during this time, growing corn and other crops. Then from 1300-1850AD we experienced "the little ice age" in which temperatures cooled for about 500 years. Basic logic would indicate that the next 400-500 years would experience somewhat of an upswing. Go figure.
Global warming is a religion that seeks to silence the "false teachers." Of course our favorite "global warmer" Albert Gore does not disappoint. In Newsweek, 1992, Gore suggests that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports "undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take." But wait! There's more. Another Al Gore gem came back in 1989 in the New York Times, in which he compared anyone who does not believe in global warming, to those who ignored the signs of the Holocaust 50 years ago. Hmmm, I thought America was built on healthy debate and the glorious free exchange of ideas. Perhaps when it "really" counts, it's best to just keep the ignorant critics silent.
Often, global warming critics say that "global warmers" worship at the feet of almighty nature. I disagree. For if they had true faith in nature, if the earth is billions of years old, then wouldn't almighty nature be able to take care of itself? I believe rather that they worship at the throne of themselves. You see, global warming comes from a fundamental and narcissistic belief that man is actually powerful enough to destroy the planet. Good folks like Al Gore believe that only they are enlightened enough to save the planet from moron humans. We can exercise our ultimate power over nature for mercy, not destruction, and if we just put our faith and trust in him, it'll all be okay.
"Wolf! Wolf!"
Published by Jack Sampson
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. View profile
- 10 Kitchen Tips to Help Fight Global WarmingThis article offers 10 simple tips that can be implemented in the kitchen to help reduce energy use and impact on global warming.
- Global Warming and the United StatesAn interesting look at a controversial subject. Is it real? Is the world and humanity at risk? Signs and symptoms of a planet with a fever occuring right before our eyes.
- 25 Easy Ways that Normal People Can Help Fight Global WarmingThere are many ways to fight global warming. Here's a list of ways to do this.
Global Warming: What Can I Do??What the average American can do to save the planet from global warming through their everyday actions!!
You Are Causing Global WarmingYou are causing global warming right now, by the choices you make.
- The Political Pseudoscience of Global Warming
- Global Warming or Solar Warming?
- 10 Ways to Help Stop Global Warming
- It's Rabbit Season...No, It's Duck Season...No, It's Global Warming Season
- Scientists Research Temporary Global Warming Solution
- The Problem of Global Warming:The Extinction of Earth's Animals
- Global Warming and Environmental Issues - Part 1
- Climate models
- Vikings in Greenland
- The apostasy of unbelievers
13 Comments
Post a CommentExcellent article! It would be great if people would learn the facts instead of flocking to a theory based on other theories. People say 'past' data is inaccurate and should be ignored...as if there were a point in time where one system of measure was simply abandoned for another. In reality, there was a gradual change from each to the next with proper conversion methods to ensure accuracy. Besides, trend analysis is wholly independent of the accuracy of the measurement itself. Regardless of the units, 24 will always be higher than 17.
For an unbiased look at this multi-faceted issue, read Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear.
Adam, thanks for responding. First of all, you'll find this article to be well documented so I'm not sure what you're problem is there. As far as the "rest of the world doing a better job" I think not. If you can get Tanzania, Bangladesh, and whatever-akastan to start driving electric cars then more power to ya brother. Pun intended. Fact is many third-world countries rely on energy production and they are most definitely NOT on board with the Kyoto crap. Point being you're just wrong there. Global warming is a fact and that is not political, but the causes of, and the extent to which, is NOT fact and is inherently political! Doom and gloom is an OPINION based on historically unreliable guesswork. Non-doom-and-gloom of which I am a part is based on clear, documented historical climate cycles and a pitiful lack of evidence to support impending doom.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can look at it this way. If you can't look at the pictures of both Arctics breaking into pieces and feeling something is wrong, then I don't know what to say. You commonly quote "scientists." Who are these scientists and what credibility do they have? This reminds me of ancient historians such as Herodotus who say "I heard someone say that. . ." And even if animals do give off more greenhouse gasses then we do, we can even things out by doing our part to make things better. You've got to get past the fact that liberals are supporting fighting global warming, because political issues should not be affecting this at all. This isn't just a Republican / Dem issue. Why else do you think the whole rest of the world is doing such a better job at fighting it? Because they aren't considering it a political issue and just know the facts!
I'm just going to go ahead and do it...AJ King may actually stand a chance in the world of open-eyed debate. He comes in and does do it. You have to respect that. He also seems to be able to look for what the opposing view is. That is in the world of the libz a rare breed. Most just shut sown anything that contends. I do love this stuff. The truth lies in a reality in which this planet will do as it is naturally predisposed to do in the case of "whatever" man does. We are not an imposition to earth. We are a part of it and if we do not respect it, it's 'burps', if you will, that it emits in order to correct and align itself after our influence may be detrimental to us. Earth is a living thing. We are incidental and it does not depend on us. We depend on it.
The problem with this debate is you've turned it into a political issue. Because Al Gore happened to produce "An Inconvenient Truth" - conservatives are the first to mock it. Because liberals are raising their voices about global warming, you instinctively take the opposite side. The debate is over - You're right, this world might be able to support billions more people - IF we did everything for the common good. That means giving unlimited help and techology to underdeveloped countries, all of us trading in our SUVS for cars that get 80 miles a gallon. All of us investing in clean energy research, solar power, the strictest pollution regulations.... The technology is there, and you have a point - but it won't happen if we keep going along with 'business as usual' as you seem content with.
(cont...) or maybe it's because the earth has an agricultural capacity for at minimum 33 billion people. (barring little technological advances, which, in 100 yrs could have a much greater cap.) it might even be that most estimates (including the ever liberal U.N.) predict a population plateau at 9-10 billion (a figure that has steadily gone down w/ each prediction) But hey, if you're really that worried about overpopulation, start killing some people. The fact is, we've heard "wolf" cried too many times from the same people. Fool me once, etc... And I'm not in the mood to feel guilty for driving a car. Do you know that animals release more greenhouse gasses than cars? Of course you didn't. When they fart, crap, burp, and then die and decay. FAR MORE CO2 than fossil fuels.
AJ! I'm flattered you read my article! So i'll be nice... 1) El Nino, exactly. The hurricane forcast was wrong because it's nearly impossible to accurately predict what the earth will do. Point being, climate models cannot be hailed as scientific fact or anything close. 2) You're right, the planet regulates itself. I would explain what that means but this is only a comment. 3)Your doom-and-gloom neo-malthusian view is curious. If overpopulation is the problem, this should be your belief structure: Anti-stem cell, pro-war, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, anti-Aids research, etc... after all it's our only hope. But you're not (most) of these. why? Perhaps because you've been out west to Arizona, Utah, montana, etc.. where "light pollution" is caused by star light (i.e. no light pol.) because there are such vast uninhabited lands that you can drive two hours and never see a soul. (cont...)
I am only sorry that no one has yet re-counted the once lauded fact that Saddam Hussein put into the atmosphere in a mere three years the equivalent to 100 years of toxins from the entire earth at the time under normal use conditions.
If it is not you, or me, we will not hear it though, Sir. It may cause to illustrate that Saddam was in fact the worst WMD...
The hurricane season of 2006 was weak because of an El Nino in the pacific... The Asian Pacific had one of their worst hurricane seasons this year. The planet can take care of itself and it will... It will regulate us right along with it by making huge swaths inhospitable to humans!!!! We're killing ourselves here, not the planet. The root of the problem is overpopulation. You think going from 3 billion to 6 billion in less than 50 years is okay? This planet can't sustain that many people. There is too much slashing and burning, carbon emissions, pollution, and we are seriously disrupting entire ecosystems. Balk all you want, but when it's too late don't go crying to God.