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.