Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Growing weary of the Global Warming hoax? A review of the case AGAINST global warming

Anyone else getting tired of global warming politics being shoved down our collective throats? It's the far-Left's modus operandi to force their blithe, abhorrent agenda on us, whether it's the aforementioned global warming garbage, alternative lifestyles, open borders, socialized medicine, etc.

Three aspects of the global warming "phenomenon" drive me crazy:

1. The politics of the global warming hoax have seeped into our very existence, so much that conservative public servants are hoping to ride the wave of its popularity by sponsoring their own legislation to combat climate control.
2. The far-Left idiots in the environmental lobby are willing to murder millions of power, all for the sake of "clean air." They value "Mother Earth" over its children. Because of ethanol, for example, BLOOD IS ON THEIR HANDS.
3. The environmental lobby have so deeply infiltrated the ranks of the Democratic Party that its elected officials dare not lift the moratorium on the off-shore drilling ban or ease government regulations in order to help its traditional voters: working class Democrats.

According to the obnoxiously liberal Minneapolis Star-Tribune:
"Tougher gas mileage standards and a move beyond corn-based ethanol could help Minnesota exceed its goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 2025, according to a study by the University of Minnesota's Center for Transportation Studies."

"Transportation accounts for 24 percent of Minnesota's total greenhouse gas emissions, which, by definition, are a key cause of global warming."
Let's establish something right off the bat:

The notion of global warming is an absolute joke. Note the following points from respected author (Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies) and talk show host Gregg Jackson (Boston WRKO). Arm yourself with information when some sanctimonious far-Left buffoon starts to pontificate on, for example, the perils of the polar bears.

1. If carbon dioxide is responsible for increasing temperatures on earth, how do you explain the observed temperature increases on Mars where there are no automobiles, airplanes, or industrial plants emitting CO2?

2. If human induced carbon emissions are responsible for the slight half a degree Fahrenheit rise in the earth's temperature since the 1970s, how do you explain the temperature increases during the Medieval warm Period from 900-1300 prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine?

3. If man is primarily responsible for increased levels of atmospheric CO2, how do you explain the Ordovician Period, about 450 million years ago, when the CO2 level was approximately 16 times higher than it is today? How do you reconcile CO2 levels 95 million years ago which were approximately the same as they are today since man wasn't even on the planet?

4. You claim that there is a Global Warming "consensus" and that the issue of human induced global warming is settled and that immediate action to significantly reduce anthropogenic global carbon emissions is required ( i.e. Kyoto). While the vast majority of climatologists do agree that the earth has warmed about one half a degree during the past century and similarly acknowledge that the earth is always warming or cooling, there is no similar "consensus" view among climatologists that human activity is primarily responsible for it. When you claim that there is a "consensus" among scientists that humans are largely responsible for global climate change, which scientists are you referring to? How many have said that man made carbon emissions are responsible for climate change? Are these "scientists" to which you refer well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate? Finally, over 17,000 American scientists- two thirds with advanced degrees specializing in physics, geo-physics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, environmental science, chemistry, and biochemistry, have signed a petition disputing the "consensus view" that man is responsible for climate change. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm . If there is a scientific "consensus" that human carbon emissions are responsible for "global warming" how would you characterize the scientists who signed this petition? Are they merely heretical "deniers" in the pocket of Big Oil companies?

5. If man made carbon emissions are responsible for global warming, why did the temperature actually increase during the beginning of the 20th century prior to the greatest increase in carbon emissions after 1940? And why did the temperature actually decrease from 1940 to 1970 during the greatest increase in carbon emissions?

6. It is often asserted that human induced global warming is causing glaciers around the world to melt. Isn't it true however, that glaciers usually always melt or recede after cooling periods end? And isn't it also true that glacial retreat is highly selective in that glaciers are advancing globally in certain locations such as the Greenland Ice Sheet and retreating elsewhere (like the Alpine glaciers which have been retreating since the early 19th century)? If global warming is causing the glaciers to melt, isn't global cooling responsible for glaciers advancing?

7. The UN's own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found no statistically significant increase in sea levels corresponding to man's greatest amount of industrial activity and resulting carbon emissions during the last century. What empirical evidence can you cite that substantiates the common claim that "man made global warming" is responsible for rising sea levels?

8. If man made global warming is as "catastrophic" as you predict, then why don't you Democrats who control the Senate, vote to ratify the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty which was signed on November 11, 1998? Why are Democrats not holding a vote to ratify such an urgent global treaty? And if Kyoto is supposed to reduce global carbon emissions why are "Green" Europe's emissions rising at twice the rate of the US- a non-Kyoto member?

9. Only 2% of "greenhouse gasses" result from combustion emissions from SUVs and power plants. Since 98% of all greenhouse gasses - which make the earth habitable - are naturally occurring, how will reducing man-made carbon emissions have any meaningful impact on the earth's temperature? Can you cite one piece of empirical scientific evidence that restricting man made carbon emissions would reduce the earth's temperature? What would be the cost?

10. There are thousands of scientists who have concluded that there is substantial scientific evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide can have beneficial effects on natural plant and animal environments of the earth. It is a well known fact that in similar "warming periods" such as the Medieval Warm Period that residents of Greenland prospered and that this period of even greater "warmth" that we are experiencing today could lead to unprecedented economic prosperity, overall well being, and reduced mortality. What evidence do you have that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are "catastrophic?"


Goat said...

Todd here is great site you will enjoy perusing that is dedicated to debunking the AGW myth.

todd anthony said...

Thanks Goat...I'll check it out. I visited your site...VERY WELL written.


SmartlikeStreetcar said...


OK... I'm not an American, but a Canadian, and I'm an editor of an environmental business publication that gets sent to industry leaders. (We have readers at IBM, Ford, GM, JP Morgan, and the like).

Every single one of your scientific points you make has a better answer that fits with the known facts of global warming. And some of the claims that you make sound commonsensical, and that's why places like Ice Cap make them, but they are flat out wrong.

I read hundreds of articles and scientific stories every week, so I know the issues like the back of my hand. And I spend every day explain science to non-scientists. I can answer every point you make when I get an hour or so to myself in the next few days (except the one about the Democrats being lily-livered... you have a strong argument there).

But I have occasionally ventured into the right wing blogosphere, and tried to explain the science (and I do try to be respectful), and every single time... my comments have been deleted, and the comments section closed.

I don't want to spend one or two hours writing just to be deleted... and I won't bother making the arguments if you're not interested.