Skip to comments.The Great Global Warming Hoax? (Devastates the Gore-ons, but long)
Posted on 07/10/2008 12:16:22 PM PDT by pogo101
..."Global Warming" in recent historical times has been an undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that.
But we're hearing far too often that the "science" is "settled", and that it is mankind's contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing "Greenhouse Effect", which is the root "cause" of global warming. We're also hearing that "all the world's scientists now agree on this settled science", and it is now time to quickly and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming global catastrophe. And last, but not least, we're seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing. Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest. Have we become a nation of overnight loonies?
Sorry folks, but we're not exactly buying into the Global Hysteria just yet. ...
Now our puzzle is complete, and we can visualize the whole thing.
1. The sun heats the earth, repository of most of the CO2 on the planet.
2. Some stored CO2 comes out by a process known as outgassing ( from the soil ) and the champagne effect ( from the oceans ). The oceans are by far the largest source.
3. Sloppy "scientists" see the warming, and the CO2, but overlook the changes in the sun, don't see the fine differences in timing... and proceed to blame the increasing temperature on CO2 and mankind as the culprit in a classic knee-jerk reaction.
Summary - Exactly what have we learned here?
1. The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.
2. Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.
3. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.
4. Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.
5. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.
6. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.
7. CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past.
8. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.
9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.
10. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat... particularly the North Slope oil fields.
11. There is no demonstrated causal relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes and global warming. This is sheer conjecture totally unsupported by any material science.
12. Observed glacial retreats in certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of years, and show no serious correlation to short-term swings in global temperatures.
13. Greenland is shown to be an island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps dating to the 14th century. There is active geothermal activity in the currently "melting" sections of Greenland.
14. The Antarctic Ice cover is currently the largest ever observed by satellite, and periodic ice shelf breakups are normal and correlate well with localized tectonic and geothermal activity along the Antarctic Peninsula.
15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.
16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.
17. The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling.
18. Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce.
19. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.
20. In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.
Did not see this posted in recent threads on Global Warming, and I believe the article itself is new, but obviously please delete it if it is a duplicate.
Bookmark for later.
It is. These facts are well known by people who follow the issue, but you will never see them reported.
bump for later.
I think we are going to see some physical violence against some of these waccos (however you spell it). People are starting to get fed up.
Good article, but it will have no effect on the indoctrinated masses who want to feel like they are “saving the planet”. It “feels” good to save the planet.
To accept that climate is doing as it has ever done and that man can’t control it is an anathema to these neo-marxists.
“Global Warming” is so yesterday! The current buzz is Global Climate Change, where ANY change in the climate can be blamed on Mankind’s destruction of the environment! The watermelons cover all bases that way.
Truth is that Climat changes, period. That’s what it’s supposed to do.
There was a NASA scientist on C-SPAN a couple of weeks ago who said he didn’t believe the sun had any effect on the climate!!!!
Great post, and very good read. Well done from a scientific perspective. About the only thing I’d liked to have seen explored more was the emerging correlation between volcanic activity and warming. Mt. St. Helens, Pinitubo, et al, in addition to increased solar activity may have contributed greatly to some of the warming that happened in the last half of the 1900’s.
He lost me there. Who could possible believe that the sun has anything to do with the temperature of the planet? That's just crazy.
Cut & save an EXTRA cord of firewood every year, to stave off future freezing.
Grow & store an extra ton of corn for your pellet stove each season, ditto.
Start raising a few mink or chinchillas, to make fur coats later.
Start raising rabbits, to put meat on the table, manure on the garden, and fur on the hands, feet, and ears.
Buy and raise a pair or two of eider ducks, to collect down for quilts, vests, etc.
Start banking greenhouse credits, guaranteeing to unsequester an extra ton of CO^2/credit at a future date.
OR JUST IGNORE BOTH SIDES, AND CONTINUE TO HAPPILY LIVE AS ALWAYS!
Google climate insecurity.
He should visit Mercury, or Pluto to get a first hand look at the influence of the sun on a planet's climate.
How many times has the climate in earths history changed? How many times has humankind caused it? If there IS climate change, could be it’s just happening again... on its on?
IMHO, what we have here is the 21st Century version of the ancient pagan claim that our mishaps are a result of “angering the gods”. In the dim past, earthquakes, storms and other assorted catastrophes have required many sacrifices of virgins, children and other unfortunate folks to appease these angry gods! Note that the high priests and shamans demanding these “necessary” sacrifices rarely were it victims.
Why do most all the political “elite” class (sadly ‘D’ and ‘R’ alike) jump on board with this fraud?
Could it be, only a huge government, more and more totalitarian can “solve” this “problem”?
One thing for sure! to solve this phony “crisis” our REAL freedoms will enter a permanent ice age!
X... are you still collecting these type of articles?
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
5 is true but not very explanatory, 6 is true too
7 is not true. There is an inconsistent lag in some datasets, but they aren't relevant in the short run and not relevant now (the CO2 rise now is not primarily due to warming 800 years ago)
8 is definitely true! 9 and 10 are true too (although simple politics)
11 is not true. There is relationship between ocean warming and storm strength, demonstrated in storm models as well as real world statistics
12 is true in some cases, not others. 13 is weird, Greenland is still surrounded by water in the places that maps showed water back then.
14 is true and a good point. 15 gets a huh? 16 might be true in some cases but is important if true. 17 is somewhat true, although definitely not proven 18 is definitely true (and political) 19 is a truism and 20 is ok, although the preceding points somewhat weaken the case.
You should write to the author at the link at the bottom of his article. (Assuming, that is, that you have some documentation for your “Not true!” statements, some of which, here at least, you don’t explain / substantiate.)
>Good article, but it will have no effect on the indoctrinated masses who want to feel like they are saving the planet.<
I have to agree with you totally on your statement above.
#1 may be a truism to you and me, but given the media manipulation, it is not true for vast number of people.
#2 I'm anxiously awaiting the next 5 or so year's data to make a guess as to the significance of recent plateau.
Everything having to do with solar effects, or temp plateauing, etc., is going to be much more clear starting the next 5 yrs thru the next 25 years as it is highly expected by solar scientists that the Sun's activity is going to be very different.
I'm not going to go point by point with you, but again, you done a fair job. One thing, though, on "weird" #13 - Greenland - a scientist pointed out to me that in 1299 Marco Polo sailed an apparently Ice-Free Arctic Ocean through the long lost "NorthWest Passage" from Japan->Bering Strait->very near Greenland. I've been able to discover several references related to this, but the most interesting are those that have nothing to do with global temperatures. Below is one that is speaking about magnetic declination:
The location of the two secondary magnetic poles on Mercators map suggests a further correlation to an obscure, often misunderstood passage from Marco Polos 1299 travelogue. In Chapter 51 (Book I), he makes the following observation:
This island (in the Northern Ocean) is situated so far to the north that the polar constellation appears to be behind you, and to have a southerly bearing.
It is apparent from this passage in the travelogue that Marco made an observation in the field where he noted a discrepancy between the direction he was heading (north) by compass bearing and the location of Polariswhich was behind him. Of course, Polaris is situated directly above the Geographic North Pole; so it is apparent that Marco wasnt really heading north. He only thought he was heading northbecause that was the direction indicated by his compass. However, being an astute observer, he felt compelled to report an anomaly of nature that he did not understand. It seems evident that he was observing the geophysical phenomenon of magnetic declination from True North. This report, which has passed largely unnoticed and misunderstood by most readers of the travelogue should establish beyond any doubt that Marco Polo actually traveled to Asia and beyond. It makes no sense that Marco would mention in his travelogue a phenomenon that he did not understandunless he was actually present and he felt compelled by the requirements of scientific practice to report what he saw.
The degree of discrepancy (declination) between Marcos direction of travel and the location of the Pole Star would have to exceed 90 º for Polaris to be at his backseemingly having a southerly bearing. This observation establishes beyond any doubt that Marco had traveled beyond Siberia to New World shores. It is only along the coast of British Columbia that the amount of declination would be sufficient to account for this kind of observation. Apparently, during the 13th century, the location of the Magnetic North Pole was much farther south than it is todayperhaps as far south or even farther south than it was when the Nancy Manuscript was written (i.e., at 66ºN latitude). James Ross determined that the pole was situated at 70º5N-96º47W in 1837. Since that time, it has moved more than 7º farther north and 5º towards the west.
It is interesting to look at other Marco Polo maps realizing that he was drawing them with respect to magnetic North instead of True North... Only then, is it possible to recognize he did a remarkably good job.
I would also note that this year's ice looks more challenging to a passage than last year's http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=10&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=10&sy=2008
Here is the map that is so fascinating to me. Image that you are drawing this map with respect to magnetic north. All of that white area at the top is open water above Siberia and Canada. There is a whole load of Canada's northern coast, as well as Russia's. That area has been virtually ice locked since Magellan, but apparently not while Polo was sailing. Below is a polar projection map - I wish I could have found a better one for comparison here. Clearly, the map above does not show the full extent of Polo's explorations in the north (or the south, either). In fact, he would not have "seen the pole star in the south" unless he got nearly to Greenland's coast.
Recall that his voyages were a mere hundred years or so after the warmest two centuries of the last 2000yrs - it is likely to have been as much as 3F warmer in 1000AD in the north pole area as it is even now. A fairly ice-free Arctic Ocean should not be surprising.
Clarification of my post, hopefully.
The polar projection map has 0 longitude at the bottom, 90W on the left. It appears to me that on Polo’s map, the Canada coast is represented from about 120W-170W - the area above that squiggly red arrow. His notes indicate he sailed nearly to 90W, or even to 85W, in order to account for the relative positions of the pole star and magnetic north!