Skip to comments.THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
Posted on 04/08/2004 3:44:37 AM PDT by JesseHousman
For decades, since the early 1980s, the entire world has been deluged with predictions of a coming "Global Warming." But there isn't a scintilla of scientific data to support these claims. Indeed, in the 1970's the same "environmentalists" were predicting a coming Ice Age. We are, in fact, in what climatologists called an "interglacial era." That is to say, we are between Ice Ages.
For about 10,000 years since the last Ice Age, civilization has followed with the spread of the human race out of Africa to all parts of the globe. If that Ice Age had not ended, there would be no civilization. Only the warming of the Earth made it possible.
According to Zbigniew Jaworowski, writing in the Winter 2003-2004 edition of 21st Century Science and Technology, "During the past million years there were eight to ten Ice Ages, each about 100,000 years long, interspaced with short, warm interglacial periods, each of about 10,000 duration." We are currently in the latest interglacial period.
"During the present interglacial there were two warm periods: Holocenic Warming (3,500 to 6,000 years ago) and the Medieval Warming (900 to 1100 AD). Medieval Warming was succeeded by a cold period, the Little Ice Age (1350 to 1880 AD)."
The environmental movement, dating from the publication of Rachel Carson's book, and the torrent of books that followed suggesting that the entire Earth's ecology was threatened by the human race, has been focused on reducing the role of humans and, in particular, our use and dependence on what they dubbed "fossil fuels", i.e., oil, coal, and natural gas.
The outcome of the massive, multi-million dollar propaganda campaign is the United Nations Kyoto protocol on "climate control." There simply is no such thing as climate control. The climate controls us, not the other way around. The climate, the perfect definition of chaos, is entirely dependent on the actions of the Sun, the oceans, the clouds, cosmic radiation, and other factors.
We have been told, over and over again, that human industry is producing too much carbon dioxide (CO2) as the result of industrial production. It is, of course, industrial production that provides us all the benefits of modern technology from cars to air condition to heated homes to everything else that constitutes our modern lives.
It is wealthy industrialized nations that do the best job of protecting the environment. Third world, impoverished nations do just the opposite. Everything in nature is degraded in their daily quest for survival.
The "business" of global warming has produced thousands of so-called scientists who make a living by proclaiming that every natural event, whether it be a blizzard or a hurricane, is an indication of global warming. They make their living issuing false predictions of near-term global warming that is said to mark the end of civilization.
The truth is just the opposite. A bit more warming would, in fact, aid in the expansion and growth of all agriculture, all the world's forests, and, indeed, on the reduction of natural resources required to heat homes and other structures. Simply stated, one's heating bill goes up in the winter and down in the summer.
It is essential to understand that all the global warming claims have been based on computer models. These statistical configurations are dependent on the meteorological data provided by those creating them. But the simple fact is that no amount of computers could ever begin to reflect the virtually impossible task of predicting what the weather will be in fifty, a hundred, or five hundred years. Most meteorological models such as those used by the US Weather Service can, at best, predict what the weather may be in thirty-six hours and can only guess what it will be a week from now. The margin of error is high. This explains why, as often as not, predictions of snowfall or other weather events is just as often in error as not.
Jaworowski estimates that the current budget for climate research "runs now to $5 billion worldwide, and the public is convinced that humans are responsible for a current, allegedly disastrous climate change."
The great danger of the so-called global warming theory and its use as the basis of the UN's Kyoto Protocol is its political agenda. The treaty is not about climate. It is about forcing nations to cut back CO2 emissions, i.e., the use of energy. Its stated intent is to reduce emissions by about 0.2oC in order to propone the predicted global temperature in 2100. Such a reduction would not even be noticeable, but its effect would prove devastating to the world's economy, particular for industrialized nations.
The United States Senate unanimously rejected the Kyoto Protocol in July 1997. President Bush again rejected it in March 2001 as "fatally flawed." Russian Federation President Vladimer Putin criticized it during the World Climate Change Conference in Moscow in 2003. His chief economic advisor, Andrei Illarionov, warned that the Protocol "would stymie economic growth. It will doom Russia to poverty, weakness and backwardness."
Remember what happened during recent electrical blackouts? Everything came to a stop. There is no global warming. There is no need to pay heed to any of the apocalyptic claims issued daily. Go and enjoy your life.
Persons believing contrary to this statement inflate man's importance to climate out of all proportion, or, more likely, have a sinister agenda that specifically targets the USA.
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
The environmental movement, dating from the publication of Rachel Carson's bookThe book that sentenced millions of Africans to death by malaria. DDT kills mosquitos. Mosquitos kill people. Environmentalists kill people, too.
April 2003: The global average temperature departure was 0.14°C; the Northern Hemisphere temperature departure was 0.25°C; and the Southern Hemisphere departure was 0.03°C.
Below: Monthly satellite temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere (top) and Southern Hemisphere (bottom). Trend lines indicate statistically significant changes only.
Unfortunately that's not true.
"CHRISTOPHER Pearson (Inquirer, 24-25/1) blames "the environmental lobby . . . with direct responsibility for millions of needless deaths, mostly of children in the Third World, from malaria". The argument is that Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring falsely accused the insecticide DDT of dangers to both human health and the environment, that this accusation led to the banning of DDT in mosquito control programs in areas where malaria is endemic (mostly the tropics), and as a direct result of this ban, millions of people died.
This argument is arrant nonsense, recycled from an article in Quadrant, in turn recycled from a number of unscientific and unsubstantiated websites. As professionals and teachers in the field of parasite disease control, we are only too well aware of how such rubbish can be transmuted from cyberspace junk to popular folklore. Your readers should be aware of the facts:
The manufacture and use of DDT was banned in the US in 1972, on the advice of the US Environmental Protection Agency. The use of DDT has since been banned in most other developed nations, but it is not banned for public health use in most areas of the world where malaria is endemic. Indeed, DDT was recently exempted from a proposed worldwide ban on organophosphate chemicals.
DDT usage for malaria control involves spraying the walls and backs of furniture, so as to kill and repel adult mosquitoes that may carry the malaria parasite. Other chemicals are available for this purpose, but DDT is cheap and persistent and is often a very effective indoor insecticide which is still used in many parts of the world.
DDT is not used for outdoor mosquito control, partly because scientific studies have demonstrated toxicity to wildlife, but mainly because its persistence in the environment rapidly leads to the development of resistance to the insecticide in mosquito populations. There are now much more effective and acceptable insecticides, such as Bacillus thuringiensis, to kill larval mosquitoes outdoors.
Reductions in the use of DDT did occur in a number of developing nations after the US ban in 1972. This reflected concerns over environmental consequences of DDT, but was also a result of many other factors. One of the important factors in declining use of DDT was decreasing effectiveness and greater costs because of the development of resistance in mosquitoes. Resistance was largely caused by the indiscriminate, widespread use of DDT to control agricultural pests in the tropics. This problem, in fact, was anticipated by Carson: "No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored . . . The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse."
Malaria is a major, ongoing disease problem in much of the developing world. Increases in the incidence of the disease have occurred for complex reasons. Reduced insecticide usage is one, but others include the resistance to treatment in both the parasite and the mosquito vectors, changes in land use that have provided new mosquito habitat, and the movement of people into new, high-risk areas.
Most nations where malaria is a problem, and most health professionals working in the field of malaria control, support the targeted use of DDT, as part of the tool kit for malaria control. Most also agree that more cost-effective, less environmentally persistent alternatives are needed. There are some effective alternative chemicals for the control of adult mosquitoes, but preventing their further development is lack of investment by industry, because malaria is largely a disease of the poor.
Malaria is responsible for enormous suffering and death. The facts are readily available in the scientific literature. To blame a reduction in DDT usage for the death of 10-30 million people from malaria is not just simple-minded, it is demonstrably wrong. To blame a mythical, monolithic entity called the environmental lobby for the total reduction in DDT usage is not just paranoid, it is also demonstrably wrong. Your article is not only poor journalism, it is an insult to the people who work for the control of parasitic diseases that afflict developing nations.
Dr Alan Lymbery
Professor Andrew Thompson
Division of Health Sciences
Murdoch University [Australia]
Since I can only claim messengership, and not authorship, I thank you for noticing. I wish a lot more people were aware of how incorrect this particular canard of conservatism is. Then maybe we could concentrate on finding solutions instead of affixing blame.
"What do you think is the cause?"
It could be random variation; the database is not long enough to say anything about causes, or whether or not there is really a trend at all. If we had perhaps 10,000 years of such highly-correlated data, we could begin to discuss whether or not humans are causing "warming".
Some comments: The website I get this from USED to compare the actual measurements with the "best" computer simulations. Apparently the computer simulation folks made them stop on copyright grounds(?). Suffice to say that the computer predictions were about 10 times what is actually measured!
Also, it is known that the Sun is slowly brightening (the "Solar Constant" isn't constant). Some estimates were that 1/3 to 2/3 of "warming" might be driven by this brightening.
Finally, consider that Neptune's moon Triton, 1.7 billion miles from the Sun, has experienced a 10-degree C warming over about a decade. You can read about it at Triton Warming from MIT.
Al Gore thinks there is a huge traffic problem on Triton.
What Dr. Lymbery and Professor Thompson convieniently did not say is that this was done by one man, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus, against the advice of his own organisation.
The rest of that screed is green folklore defending the indefensible. There is blood on their hands and they know it.
|West Nile Virus- Bring Back DDT?|
That may be; but the facts are the DDT is not banned; it can and is used for mosquito control; environmental organizations are therefore not to blame for millions of malaria deaths; and there are many other ways in which mosquitoes and malaria could be controlled if rich countries could invest a small amount of money in such efforts in Third World countries. (Note that I say "could" and not "would" -- true investments in fixing the problem are made difficult by the difficulties of getting money to go where it is needed and the dictatorial regimes in many such countries.) One such effort that is low-cost and which could pay big dividends is the distribution of insecticide-impregnated mosquito netting.
I have no liking for radical environmental groups, but blaming them for endemic malaria is too convenient. The roots of the problem lie in several places. One of the most notable is the amassing of wealth by "big men" dictators like Idi Amin and Mugabe and a host of others like them - they amass their own fortunes and neglect the people of the countries that they rule and the basic infrastructural improvements that would improve public health drastically. Until the benefits of democracy are exported more effectively, these problems will continue even if foreign-aid funding for malaria and waterborne disease control triples.
With the sole exception of the nuclear bomb, this is absolutely true. The earth may be warming slightly, but not much more than known periodic shifts, and definitely not enough to make a significant difference for anything. And I don't see how we would think it is because of us.
And volcanic eruptions.
You've discovered a way to control volcanic eruptions?
Greenpeace, WWF, EDT, AID and the rest are all still pushing for the all out ban, and failing that they seek to make it as difficult and expensive as possible for any country to use it. Some of the quotes by their spokespeople are quite chilling and show the true agendas they are pursuing- Genocide and population control.
The following is from December 2000, and last I checked their call for banning DDT as a POP has been attempted every year since.
DDT ban is genocidal
By Steven Milloy
December 1, 2000, FoxNews.com
As first-world children eagerly anticipate the holiday season, millions of third-world children are about to be condemned to certain death from malaria by international environmental elitists.
The World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility and 250 other environmental groups will advocate the insecticide DDT be banned at next weeks United Nations Environment Programme meeting in Johannesburg. The meetings aim is a treaty banning or restricting so-called persistent organic chemicals (POPs).
Malaria control experts oppose a DDT ban, arguing that spraying DDT in houses is inexpensive and highly effective in controlling malaria especially in sub-Saharan Africa where 1 in 20 children die from malaria. Unfortunately, the eco-elites have out-maneuvered and outgunned public health advocates.
Saving lives doesnt interest DDT opponents who insist on recycling junk science to achieve their ill-considered goal of a pesticide-free world.
DDT is a persistent, bioaccumulative, hormone disrupting chemical, alleges the director of the WWFs anti-DDT effort. It is associated in the publics mind with weakened eggshells and declining bird populations..., he added.
But there never was, and still isnt a scientific basis for DDT fearmongering.
The publics mind was first polluted with misinformation about DDT by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson incorrectly alleged that DDT harmed bird reproduction and caused cancer.
Carson wrote Dr. [James] DeWitt's now classic experiments [show] that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched.
DeWitt actually reported no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT.
Carson predicted a cancer epidemic that could hit practically 100 percent of the human population. This prediction hasnt materialized, no doubt because it was based on a 1961 epidemic of liver cancer in middle-aged rainbow trout later attributed to aflatoxin. There is no credible evidence that DDT poses a cancer risk, whatsoever.
As wrong as Carson was, the Environmental Protection Agencys action against DDT the precedent for next weeks efforts to ban the chemical was worse.
Anti-DDT activism led to hearings before an EPA administrative law judge in 1971-72. After 7 months and 9,000 pages of testimony, the judge concluded DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.
Despite the exculpatory ruling, then-EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT.
Ruckelshaus didnt attend the hearings or read the transcript. He refused to release the memos used to make his decision, even rebuffing a Department of Agriculture request through the Freedom of Information Act.
As it turns out, Ruckelshaus belonged the Environmental Defense Fund. Ruckelshaus solicited donations for the anti-pesticide activist group on personal stationery stating, EDF's scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won.
The WWF now alleges DDT disrupts hormonal processes to wreak havoc on immune, reproductive and nervous systems in laboratory animals, citing a 1999 report by the National Research Council.
The allegation conveniently overlooks the reports main conclusion that the scientific evidence is inadequate to suggest that low doses of chemicals typically found in the environment pose any risk. Its not surprising, after all, that animals administered high doses of chemicals develop all sorts of ill-effects; theyve essentially been poisoned.
The WWFs chicanery doesnt end with the science. Publicly, the WWF claims it backed off the demand of a DDT ban by 2007 in favor of regulatory controls. Dont be fooled.
The would-be controls are so onerous and costly for the third world that they would operate as a de facto ban. Of the 23 countries using DDT, only 9 countries so far asked for exemptions under the impending treaty. The others either have stockpiled DDT in advance or have been scared off by the burdensome regulatory scheme, according to Roger Bate of FightingMalaria.org.
Donor agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development have pressured Belize, Bolivia and Mozambique not to use DDT or risk losing their aid money, adds Bate.
The AIDs blackmail is eerily similar to its 1970s view that the failure of the Global Malaria Eradication Program (1956-1969) was a blessing in disguise. Better off dead than riotously reproducing, an AID official said.
A committee of the National Academy of Sciences wrote in 1970, To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT... in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that otherwise would have been inevitable.
The WWF et al. often exploit the children as a stalking horse for their dubious agenda. Their effort to ban DDT is a chilling reminder of this cynicism.
Steven Milloy is a biostatistician, lawyer, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and publisher of JunkScience.com.