Debunking the 'Global Warming' Hoax

‘Global warming’, the theory that says that the atmosphere is heating up because we are adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to it through the burning of fossil fuels like oil and coal, is not science. GW is a leftist political position that is being presented as fact, and that is being reconstituted from the past. The theory that the planet is heating up unnaturally has been around for centuries because there have been several well-known long and short periods of warming throughout history. And in just as pronounced a fashion, mankind also has experienced both long and short periods of cooling.

Here are alarmist quotes from the New York Times on both warming and cooling:

In 1895, a headline read: Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again

(Washington Post in 1923: Scientists Say Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.)

In 1933: America in Longest Warm Spell since 1776. Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise

In 1952: An article stated that the “trump card of global warming “ has been "the melting glaciers”.

In 1975, when ‘global cooling’ was in vogue: Climate Change Endangers World’s Food Output

And of course in 2007, it is warming, warming, warming.

But just wait 10 years, and it will be a whole new story.

Boing, boing, boing… up and down, up and down, hot and cold, hot and cold.

The climate changes. And so do opinions about it. It is nothing to get excited about.

 The same climate ‘experts’ who today are predicting apocalyptic ‘global warming’ were just 30 years ago predicting a new ice age. Yes, the exact opposite. All the major media in the mid to late 1970s, including cover stories from Newsweek, from Time of June 24, 1974 here along with a “chilling” documentary on public TV starring Leonard Nimoy (which was re-broadcast in 2006 and is comical to watch in light of today’s GW frenzy) were predicting doom of the frozen kind. Yet anyone who grew up in the 1960s knows that winters were cold and snowy. It didn't take any hard scientific inquiry to know that. So the "ice age" crowd obviously just tagged onto what was happening in order to get money and acclaim for itself.

Then during the 1980s and 1990s, there was a slight warming trend, so the tide shifted 180 degrees among the worrywarts, and the public was simply smothered in the “new” bad news and urged to forget about the old apocalypse.

So the question is: How can we trust people who flip-flop 180 degrees like this? Where is the science?

Answer: It is not science at all. It is emotion and ‘junk science’ being perpetrated by environmentalists and other socialists, and is being supported intellectually by leftist college professors who get tons of money for their research in exchange for promoting GW. This ‘junk science' is mixed in with ignorance, gullibility, bias, pagan religious fervor, manipulated public opinion and opportunist politics.

And how do they measure temperature anyway? Is every thermometer completely free from any outside influence. It is in the shade? In the sun? On the edge of a forest? In the desert? Is it breezy? Near a highway? Within a wind pattern that could raise its temperature from a nearby source (a town, a building etc.)? And who says these scientists are competent anyway? Who is gathering the data? Who is interpreting the data?

 And there is one single goal to all this disaster-mongering: It is to raise money and gain political power for environmental groups and their friends in the universities and in government who wish to tell everyone how to live their lives. It is intellectual socialism, pure and simple. “We are killing the earth, and here is OUR way to stop it,” say the eggheads. And they plan to tell you what kind of car you can drive, how many gallons of gasoline you’ll get, how big a house you can live in. And if they don’t like you or if you have disagreed with GW or if you are a conservative, they call you a GW "denier" (to covertly suggest that you are in the same class as a Nazi "Holocaust denier"), and they ultimately, if successful, will cut you off from energy use. Meanwhile, the ultra-rich supporters of GW hysteria like the Hollywood billionaires will continue to use more energy per person than at any time in history, without question,  because they are part of the privileged socialist elite.

Here’s a strange anomaly. At the same time that we are being warned about the GW bogeyman, we have been told by the same ‘scientists’ for decades now that 10,000 years ago, during the last Ice Age, that the northern part of the United States was covered by a sheet of ice one mile thick. So if this indeed is true, then have we not been in a “warming” trend ever since? And why should we get excited about that trend continuing over the last 100 or 50 years or 30 years?

Answer: We shouldn’t. Because during the 20^th century, the climate went from cool to warm… twice. And actual measurement show that the last warming period ended in 1998.

And as far as recent global temperature readings are concerned, recording stations in frigid Siberia essentially were abandoned after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and thus many really cold readings never were recorded throughout the 1990s. So the global average temperature would read warmer than it really was.

In fact, much of the warming in the 20^th century occurred before 1940. The hottest decade was the 1930s when America was mired in the depression, a time in which our static economy was consuming much reduced levels of carbon fuel (gasoline, coal etc.). Two of the hottest years were 1938 and 1939, almost 10 years after the stock market crash, and well into the economic contraction. The famous New England hurricane of September 21, 1938 was an extremely rare and violent storm. If it happened today, the GW crowd would claim it is an anomaly that is due to one thing and one thing only, the current man-made 'warming'.

Then in the period between 1940 and 1970, when CO2 emissions were skyrocketing in the energy-hungry postwar economic boom, the United States experienced cooling, leading to all of the “new ice age” predictions of the mid-1970s. See how the GW advocates take any current condition and bend it to make their case?

And consider this: Average surface temperatures are generally going to rise naturally because man is putting up more houses, buildings, roads and parking lots, which reflect heat rather than absorbing it like an open field or a forest does. So some warming will naturally be a result of economic growth.

The enviro response to this and to everything else man does is: Stop building things. That is why they are fervently advocating a no-growth agenda wherever they can, particularly in rural areas where people have little political power. Thus millions of rural people are being denied their livelihoods based on false extremist environmentalism.  

Thousands of scientists globally disagree with the theory of "global warming". Yet Oprah Winfrey does not invite them onto her show to balance her one hour of pro-GW propaganda with Al Gore. Why not? Why are Gore & Co. so afraid of real debate? Why does Gore say repeatedly that “the science is settled”?

Because he knows that the whole theory can be debunked with common sense. And that when people hear real facts and truth in a case like this, that they will gravitate toward the truth, and no longer will believe his theory. It is like the issue of crime. In the 1960s, liberals theorized that we should be nice to criminals, and that good treatment would reduce crime. When crime skyrocketed as a result, however, the nation reversed course. People saw that the theory was nonsense, but only after suffering for more than a decade. In the meantime, rational people never had strayed from the certain truth that we should be tough on criminals, just as rational people always have looked at GW and asked, “Where’s the substance? Where’s the actual proof of your theory?”

One way you can tell that GW skepticism is catching on, and that the entire issue is merely political in nature, is that some scientists, including the chief climatologist for the state of Oregon, George Taylor of Oregon State University, was fired from his job for expressing skepticism about GW. Meanwhile, Heidi Cullen, formerly chief meteorologist for the Weather Channel who since has been magically promoted to “chief climatologist”, said that meteorologists who disagree with GW should be decertified by the American Meteorological Society. Just like in witch hunts of old. 

If GW advocates are so sure of their theory, why won’t they hold an honest debate? Why must they simply censor opposition? In another attempt to stifle debate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., America’s most prominent environmentalist, even said about people who disagree with GW: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors."

Oh really?

Do you see the climate of suspicion and paranoia they have built around “global warming”? This is like the Soviet Union. They fear honest debate and dissent, just as any police state does. And does this not make clear how the modern-day Kennedy family, including Senator Ted Kennedy, is so closely allied with a suppression of open, democratic debate?

Here’s an example of how GW advocates very casually and deceitfully use language and emotion to confuse us.  Testifying before the United States Senate, Al Gore said that “if your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor”, implying that we must treat the planet like a sick child, and investigate the GW problem like a medical diagnosis.

But here’s the big deception in that statement: Humans have a standard body temperature of 98.6 degrees, whereas planet earth never has had any standard temperature, but rather has experienced fluctuating temperatures for millennia. So there is no way we can say that such-and-such a global temperature is either normal or abnormal, or that the earth has “a fever”. See how deceitful they are, and how they manipulate people and emotion, like using the powerful image of a sick baby (highly ironic for pro-abortion Gore)? If they truly had proof of their theory, they would need not use these tactics.

Gore loves to use other emotional tools, like showing melting glaciers in his GW film An Inconvenient Truth. But it is an established fact that many of the glaciers he discusses started to melt before the intensive use of fossil fuels over the last 100 years.

Now several leftists and environmentalists even have blamed the August 1, 2007 Minneapolis I-35 bridge collapse on "global warming". Yes, it was over 90 degrees for a few days, they say, and this must have caused the metal to buckle, which is utterly preposterous. So why don't all the bridges in the American South collapse from the heat?

At the same time, the same conspiracy kooks like Rosie O’Donnell are denying that the steel beams in the World Trade Center could have been melted and weakened by the 2000 degree heat from burning jet fuel on 9/11. No, Bush and Cheney brought the twin towers down, they say.

Yikes…

Science -- and its accompanying rationality -- is yet another endeavor that has been co-opted and undermined by liberal socialism, along with the universities, the media, the arts, wealthy foundations, the churches, the judiciary and our public schools. And like all of socialism, the entire GW industry is built around getting as much wealth into the hands of socialists as possible, people who couldn’t otherwise find work in the real world (many college professors, government bureaucrats, enviro advocates etc.)

Scientists who promote GW are getting huge amounts of money because most of the money in science today is controlled by rich environmental groups (who give money to scientists who say the world is heating up so that enviro groups can get more contributions); the government (the bureaucrats who hand out this money are part of the socialist monolith that will be empowered and enriched if GW is accepted); and the universities (which everyone knows are leftist in nature, and whose professors wish to control the oil companies and the world energy supply and thus all the world’s people through their irrational theories including environmentalism, wealth redistribution, pacifism etc.)

It's all about the MONEY. Remember the Golden Rule: Socialists are vastly more obsessed with money than anyone else... including capitalists.

People have been predicting the end of the world since the beginning of time. The only difference between this apocalyptic “warming” story and the others is that this one is being presented not as religious in nature, but as scientific, when it is not. And it is actively being promoted by major secular, socialist entities across the globe including tens of thousands of politicians; the United Nations; the global intellectual class; the universities; the global environmental movement; and the worldwide media, all of whom have a big-government socialist agenda. Why? To scare people into believing that their own energy use is killing the earth so that government socialists and college professors then can dictate the central behavior in people’s lives – energy consumption. By controlling energy, you control people. Currently, enviros are blocking energy production all over America in order to undermine the oil companies that provide our basic resource and to take control of our energy supply according to their agenda. This will get much, much worse if their GW theory takes root.

But this set of climate circumstances were are currently experiencing is nothing new. That is because there is nothing unusual going on. Climate has been changing  -- and not changing -- for millennia. We don’t even know about many climate changes because people did not have the time to sit around and worry about the changing weather or climate, or did not care if the climate fluctuated. It is called “nature” and it is unpredictable.

We do know for certain that the Medieval years in Europe (roughly 900 AD to 1300 AD) were very, very hot years – much, much hotter than today -- known as “the Medieval Optimum”. And people did not panic – they enjoyed it, and prospered under it. Written historical records show that England had in those Medieval years a vibrant wine industry, which now is impossible. England is far too cold to grow wine grapes today. So “warming” has happened before, and much worse than the brief periods of warming we have experienced over the last 100 years.

And after the Medieval Optimum, the climate shifted dramatically, and there was a long “mini Ice Age” from roughly 1315 AD to well into the 19th century, with cold winters and cool summers.

Boing, boing, boing… Up and down, up and down the climate goes.

And enviros don't want you to realize the obvious, that warm weather is good for mankind, and that shifts to cold weather hinder us. In frigid weather, we must devote much more in resources and personal energy to stay warm. New Englanders always are happy when the winter is mild, and for good reason. And Europe’s Medieval peasantry was better fed, was more prosperous, innovative, happy and even grew taller(!) during the warm years. When the Medieval climate suddenly shifted overnight in 1315, disaster struck and misery followed. Thus when people are happy and prosperous under warmer weather, environmentalists manipulate them emotionally, making them feel bad instead of allowing them to feel optimistic. This is what has happened with warm winters in the United States; we have been told not to be thankful, but to worry. It is amazing how effective this negativity has been.

When New England had three weeks of warm weather in January 2007, the enviros were all over the media worrying people sick with all their comments about the "strange weather" and predicting that this was just another harbinger of something apocalyptic. Then when there were several weeks of unduly cold weather in April 2007, they immediately declared that “global warming” was shifting the whole calendar, pushing the seasons back... or forth. Or whatever.

This is part of irrational socialist doom-and-gloom and negativity, which is the leading emotion of the political left used to undermine us and to urge us to adopt their theories and, worse, their “solutions”. This is why Gore is saying that “we must act within 10 years”. He is attempting to rush us into adopting draconian legislation before the issue is truly debated.

So just a few established facts show that there is absolutely no scientific basis to describe any current “global warming” as anything but a natural cycle that has been coming and going for centuries. If you are going to make a hypothesis like “global warming”, you must prove it, not simply suggest it and then arrange the facts around the outcome you desire.

In fact, when “warming” alarmists state, for instance, that “Denver had its hottest day on record”, we can only say first that most of the world, including the United States, has been keeping accurate temperature records for less than a hundred years, and second that Denver was uninhabited by temperature-reading people until about 150 years ago, so we have no idea whether Denver’s “hottest day” is anything outside a normal cycle.

And what about other possible “warming” outcomes like these:

“Global warming” is man-made and is a good thing because it is preventing the “ice age” that was being predicted by the same people only 30 years ago.

Or: “Global warming” is being produced by environmentalism. 30 years ago they claimed the “ice age” would be caused by air pollution bouncing the sun’s radiation back into space. Thus a cleaner environment today would be causing “warming”.

Or: “Global warming” is caused by a bigger human population exhaling carbon dioxide (CO2), and by more construction of buildings, road, parking lots etc.

Or: Increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should be causing crops to grow faster and trees to grow higher because trees and plants “breathe in” CO2 and expel oxygen, while humans breathe in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide, balancing each other out. Trees and plants grow by converting the carbon in the carbon dioxide into their “food” to produce wood, plant matter etc.

In other words, there are endless possible explanations for what enviros claim is happening. They choose only one disastrous outcome, however, and that one serves the interest of apocalypse and, consequently, socialist control of energy production and use. Follow the money and where the political power goes, and you will see why they advocate this end-of-the-world scenario.

And there are other holes in the “warming” theory. As some parts of the world have shown temperature rises, other parts show much colder temps, which Al Gore finds to be "an inconvenient truth". When Gore gave a January 2005 speech in New York City calling GW the greatest threat to mankind, the temperature outside was the coldest in the city in a decade. Gore got laughed out of town. So now “global warming” alarmists are using their words judiciously, often calling it “warming” in summer, and “climate change” in winter.

And they have fallen into a trap, as do all people who try to adjust reality to their own agenda. Because when those record cold temperatures are recorded all over the globe during times of “warming”, they have to constantly scramble for an explanation. So they simply say that “global warming” really is causing “climate shifts” which can include frigid weather and any other anomaly. Anything, in fact. Every base is covered, every eventuality accounted for. They can’t lose; they have created their own Hollywood movie where they control the script.

Of course, the media cooperate fully. ABC News stoked the GW flame in 2006, asking its viewers to e-mail in changes they see in their environment that may be attributable to “global warming”. And of course thousands of gullible people start to look at a rainy summer, a dry autumn, a tornado, a hurricane, or any other completely normal event as a manifestation of the ever-frightening “climate change”. Only problem is that the climate and the weather sometimes shift constantly, while sometimes remaining quite stable. There is no fixed pattern.  Rational people know this.

Is the global average temperature in fact rising? All the “warming” advocates say yes. But why should we believe them? They control all the data. They can say anything they want. And the same people said:

 *That DDT is one of the most dangerous chemicals ever developed, leading to its banning over much of the world. This since has been debunked. Even the ultra-liberal New York Times has come out in favor of reinstating DDT use after hundreds of millions of people have died globally of malaria since DDT was banned (DDT kills malaria-spreading mosquitos) after the release of another bogus intellectual tract, Rachel Carson’s 1962 anti-DDT book Silent Spring.

*They said that nuclear power would kill off mankind, which has since been debunked. A huge proportion of even environmentalists themselves now support nuclear power, including the godfather of the enviro movement, James Lovelock.

*They said that the “hole in the ozone layer” of the 1990s was going to consume the earth. So where's the “hole” now?.

*They said that electric power lines caused cancer in people who lived near high-voltage lines (false).

*They said that dangerous radon gas lurked in millions of basements across the nation (false).

*They said in the 1970s that all the topsoil in the Midwest was washing into the Mississippi River, and that America would have no food after 1990 (obviously false).

And on and on. Every month a new scare story. All of this is intended to do one thing: Frighten people. Thus it is hard to know if the global temperature even is rising because you would have to believe people who have told us so many outright lies before. And even if the temperature is rising, so what? It has fluctuated throughout all of history. It can drop precipitously too, as it has in the past.

Now think of your bathtub, because you can debunk another major aspect of the “warming” myth with elementary science, the kind of analysis that ecologists refuse to teach kids today.

If you fill the bathtub with big ice chunks, then fill it right up to the very rim with water, and the ice chunks all melt, what will happen to the water level? When the ice melts into water, will it add to the water in the tub and cause the water to overflow onto the bathroom floor?

Answer: No.

So what will happen?

Answer: Actual experiments will show you that the water level in the tub will remain the same. Go try it. It’s proven science.

Try it with a glass of water this way:

Put some chunks of ice in a glass, then fill the glass up halfway with water. Carefully put a piece of tape precisely at the level of the water, then let the ice melt. You will notice that after the ice is melted, that the water level in the glass is exactly the same as when you started. It is right at the level of the tape.

What does this have to do with “global warming”? It is this: The ultimate apocalyptic scenario for GW is that the polar ice cap over the North Pole – which is not on land, but is simply ice that is floating in the Arctic Ocean -- is melting, and that this will cause the world’s sea levels to rise, flooding hundreds of cities and millions of homes on the edge of the United States and elsewhere.

Yet environmentalists are stating that that “20% of the ice cap has melted since 1979” with a frightening map showing all the areas that are eventually going to be submerged. But strangely this 20% melting has caused no flooding or rises in sea levels. Why? Because there is no rise, as our experiment showed. Even if it all melts, there will be no rise. Yet enviros and the media are passing off this submerging scenario as fact when our simple experiment shows it to be a fantasy.

And this. Many rabid enviro liberals live in our cities. Most enviro organizations are headquartered in cities, and a large proportion of enviro funding comes from upper-income and wealthy urbanites. So if they truly believe that GW is going to cause the sea level to rise and to flood our coasts, why are they not today building walls around Boston and New York and San Francisco? Would it not make sense to build the wall now in anticipation of the certain ocean rises to come, rather than waiting until it is too late?

The reason they are not building walls is that, first of all, there is no evidence anywhere, anytime, that sea levels are rising. Nowhere. Baby-boomers: Go to the ocean beach you went to as a kid, and see if the water is higher than it was back then (it’s not).

The second reason that they are not building walls is even more critical. These people do not actually believe this “global warming” nonsense. It is all for political consumption. And this is the most telling factor of all.

Next time you meet an environmentalist, ask why they are not building these walls. They will not be able to answer you in a straightforward manner.

If you are going to make a scientific point, you need to prove it. “Warming” advocates simply state their view, then tell us to disprove it. This is not science. This is demagoguery.

It is highly ironic that those who most fervently support radical environmentalism and its end-of-the-world theories are the ultra-rich in New York and Hollywood and San Francisco and Santa Fe, those multi-billionaires in the media like Oprah Winfrey and others who choose to live and work and build their fortunes in man-made urban and suburban environments, far from nature. But then again, this clearly explains why they support extremist environmentalism: Because they live far from nature, and do not understand how brutal – and fickle -- nature truly is.

Type ‘global warming debunked’ into your internet search engine to read more on this subject. There is a wealth of ideas out there to ponder.