I Reject The Idea of Man Made Global Warming

image
I believe in global warming. I do not, however, believe in global warming as a manmade event. In fact, I whole heartedly reject the conclusion. I don’t care whether you believe otherwise or not. All I will tell you is that global warming has gone beyond science and is now religion. The proponents of man made global warming are out to censor all viewed opposed to them. They are tired of debating their opponents. They want them silenced. And cholera was once thought to to be an airborne disease and the plague was once thought to be carried by cats.

Before I go any further, I’d like to point out that this “report” that came out last week from the U.N. was actually not the report. It was a summary for policy makers drawn up by bureaucrats. The actual report will now be edited to make sure it conforms to the summary. Let’s repeat that. The report will be edited to fit the bureaucratically written summary. When that happened a few years ago to the National Academy of Sciences report President Bush asked for on this subject, the liberals and media screamed “conspiracy!” What goes around comes around and what’s good for the goose is good for the gander (were this not a family site, I’d end this sentence with the plural form of a five letter word that begins with “B” and itches).

So now, to begin my diatribe against the zealots, I’d like to point out some things.

Algore and all the priests of global warming point out a near perfect relationship between the level of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere and temperatures on the Earth. It is striking in how perfect it is. And despite the lack of sustained proven credibility in paleoclimatology, they’ve hung their hat on the Vostok ice core sample that shows the same thing. Follow me here. A large number of very credible scientists actually think the ice core shows that during warm periods on earth’s surface, temperatures rose and then the gases grew. But you don’t hear about these scientists and their research because the media and high priests all label them kooks.

Go get yourself an icy cold 12 oz. Coke from your fridge. Get a room temperature one too. Get two glasses. Pour one Coke in each glass and watch. What happens? The room temperature Coke releases its CO2 rapidly. The cold one does not. So maybe, just maybe, a colder ocean releases gas more slowly than a warmer ocean. Considering man does not release into the atmosphere CO2 and methane at the same rate and yet scientists find a near perfect correlation between CO2 levels, methane levels, and global temperatures, maybe it is the Earth getting warmer, which causes the gas release from the oceans and not the other way around. Maybe this can all be explained by the sun going through a period of increased activity, generating more heat. And maybe that is why Mars is experiencing global warming too!

Of course the zealots of global warming say this is all nuttery and denial. They are, like Laurie David (as qualified as I am to speak on this matter), beyond debating. Now they just want the rest of us burned at the stake — despite the CO2 that would be generated.

Next, let’s remember that despite what you are hearing now, there is actually huge debate about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to other times. There are wide variations in reported levels. There is lots of evidence, even from ice cores, that the middle ages saw more CO2 in the atmosphere than is presently there. But again, remember, any scientist who makes this point is labeled a kook. And the sun once revolved around Earth too.

Assume for just one second that global warming is real. Algore, in his “documentary,” proposed that a few thousand people a year in Britain would die because of the increased heat. What he failed to mention was that more than twice as many people die in Britain each year due to cold related issues. So, wouldn’t there be a net positive, or does this then take us back to the whole population explosion crisis?

Okay, another thing about Algore’s movie. He focused on Antarctica melting. Why did he ignore the fact that the most recent tests of Antarctica prior to his movie being released shows that over 90% of Antarctica’s ice sheet is growing thicker?

What about the hockey stick? Virtually every unbiased statistician has shown the hockey stick graph to be crap. It started off using tree rings and then used real temperatures, linking the two together as if they were somehow perfectly compatible. Likewise, the graph ignored the middle ages. Why? Interestingly, the U.N. has done the same thing. In 1998, their graph showed that the temperatures in the middle ages were warmer than they are now. When they re-released the graph after 2000, they got rid of that spike. They said “new data” had proven it faulty. When skeptics pointed out that temperatures in the 1930’s and 1970’s were hotter than today, those bits of data were revised down too based on “new data.”

Now, let me borrow from Neal Boortz who lists a number of reasons for his skepticism that I share:

• Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don’t seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.


• The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?


• It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.


• It wasn’t all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about “global cooling” and another approaching ice age?


• How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that’s frightening.

• The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world’s biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.


• Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.


• What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?


• Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying “we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?”


• In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.


• There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.


• Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ice mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.


• Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.


• Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.


• Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.


• During the last 20 years — a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels — global temperatures have actually decreased. That’s right … decreased.


• Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?


But, you know, none of this is up for debate. Don’t even point this stuff out. Because you too will be a kook.

About the author

Erick Erickson

View all posts

3 Comments

  • If there is any global warming that might be man made, I would say it has to do with the sinfulness of man. Has anyone checked the temperature around murder scenes, rape scenes, armed robberies during the time of the events,or around all the prisons we have, or during the adulterous passionate affairs going on or even around all the casinos, or the legislatures of the land when they’re ripping off the public’s monies for their own pockets or projects, i.e., earmarks? The Bible talks about how the earth vomits itself up due to such happenings. Also, if a woman was said to be lying to her husband back in Leviticus she could be taken to the high priest who would give her “bitter water” which if she were lying, would cause the inside of her thigh to rot! Body chemistry could be causing the heating of the earth. So global warming. . .and the earth is to burn, not flood next time it is destroyed by God, not man. . .will be caused, is being caused by the sinfulness of man. . .not by automobile exhaust or factory fumes, etc. Just as the earth was flooded when there was only one godly man, Noah, so the earth will get pretty warm at some time in the future with the way we’re going now. However, God is giving warnings, i.e. the winds (and this includes in snow storms)and the fires are God’s angels, according to the Bible, but perhaps we do have time for another Great Awakening, another true revival. Let’s pray for it, on our knees in humble sincere repentence. Perhaps God has not turned His back on us yet.

  • Lots of claimed statistics. But where are the references?

    There was only one reference, to Neil Boortz, a man who frequently reminds his listeners that he is an entertainer and that nobody should believe anything he says unless they can independently verify it.

    I’m not saying you are wrong, but jeeze. People with known highly partisan viewpoints need to be doubly sure to dot their “i”s and cross their “t”s when attempting to write a persuasive argument on a currently highly partisan debate. That is if they truly want their viewpoint considered by rational people instead of just preaching to the choir to generate page views.

    What gets me is that, unless you are a major Exxon shareholder, I don’t see what you have to gain from making this a partisan issue? If it weren’t so politicized we could approach it rationally and get to the facts. But given the partisan polarization, you can’t trust either side to be honest about any aspect that doesn’t 100% support their side. Hell, everyone knows that if you posture for a fight you are going to get one!

    So all that said, without you providing any supporting references the only thing I *can* take away from this is that you actually are a partisan kook after all!