Home (Post) Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Monday, November 05, 2007

The Deceit Behind Global Warming

Anyone with half a brain cell knows that human based global warming is a con job perpetrated by Algore and his minions but most don’t know the history beyond this hoax.  Now the UK Telegraph has documented the stages of deceit leading up to the current situation. 

No one can deny that in recent years the need to “save the planet” from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of our time. As Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, claimed in 2004, it poses “a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism”, warning that by the end of this century the only habitable continent left will be Antarctica.

Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there must be something in it. But if we set the story of how this fear was promoted in the context of other scares before it, the parallels which emerge might leave any honest believer in global warming feeling uncomfortable.

The story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the top of the international agenda falls into five main stages.

Stage one:

Stage one came in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a disastrous change in the earth’s climate. Their fear was not of warming but global cooling, of “a new Ice Age”.

A scare is often set off - as we show in our book with other examples - when two things are observed together and scientists suggest one must have been caused by the other. In this case, thanks to readings commissioned by Dr Roger Revelle, a distinguished American oceanographer, it was observed that since the late 1950s levels of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere had been rising. Perhaps it was this increase that was causing the new warming in the 1980s?

Stage two:

Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s.

But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in 1988 the UN set up its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). Through a series of reports, the IPCC was to advance its cause in a rather unusual fashion. First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a Summary for Policymakers, drafted in consultation with governments and officials - essentially a political document - in which most of the caveats contained in the experts’ report would not appear.

Stage three:

Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to its rejection in 1997 by the US Senate, despite the best attempts of Mr Gore.

Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn’t want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.

One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures had been higher than in the late 20th century.

In 1998 came the answer they were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the “hockey stick” because it showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past 1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.

It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so comprehensively discredited as the “hockey stick”. Yet the global warming juggernaut rolled on regardless, now led by the European Union.

Stage four:

In 2004, thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin’s Russia, stage four of the story began when the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified.

In the past three years, we have seen the EU announcing every kind of measure geared to fighting climate change, from building ever more highly-subsidised wind turbines, to a commitment that by 2050 it will have reduced carbon emissions by 60 per cent. This is a pledge that could only be met by such a massive reduction in living standards that it is impossible to see the peoples of Europe accepting it.

All this frenzy has rested on the assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise in tandem with CO2 and that, unless mankind takes drastic action, our planet is faced with the apocalypse so vividly described by Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth.

Stage five:

Yet recently, stage five of the story has seen all sorts of question marks being raised over Gore’s alleged consensus. For instance, he claimed that by the end of this century world sea levels will have risen by 20 ft when even the IPCC in its latest report, only predicts a rise of between four and 17 inches.There is also of course the harsh reality that, wholly unaffected by Kyoto, the economies of China and India are now expanding at nearly 10 per cent a year, with China likely to be emitting more CO2 than the US within two years.

More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

The article concludes:

If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded

Comments

Avatar for FlyOnTheWall

I just found this: 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2827010454587416316&hl=en

Long, boring and technical.  Just the way I like ‘em. 
He had a good description of positive and negative reinforcement on global temperature. 

I’ve still not fully decided on global warming as a theory.  I’m appalled by scientists altering data to trump up their favorite theory (cough Mann cough.) Weather.com lists local highs over the last 100 years.  That indicates stable except for about the mid 40’s when it was really hot.

FlyOnTheWall on November 5, 2007 at 10:11 am

"If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded.”

And will irreparably damage the standing of scientists and science in the eyes of the vast majority of people. Most people already distrust scientists, this bids fair to set them back substantially farther.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on November 5, 2007 at 10:34 am

fly, the ‘What is normal’ question your referenced video trys to answer is ludicrous because there is nothing that can be defined as normal in cllmatology unless it is that this planet earth remains inhabitable.  Humanity rests on a glob of matter attached by gravity to a star that keeps it from being a ice ball hurdling through space to unknown destinations.  All in all cosmic factors dominate and there is nothing that man can do to change that.


You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

docdave on November 5, 2007 at 11:39 am

Oops, DD! You done hacked off the Creationists and the Secular Humanists, and I bet they is a whole bunch’a other ‘ists that will be torked off by that comment.

SALUT’!!! My admiration knows no bounds, Sir.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on November 5, 2007 at 01:23 pm
Avatar for FlyOnTheWall

DD, I reject as simplistic ideology the idea that we cannot affect the environment through our actions.  On the other hand, no one has proven to me that we have altered the worldwide environment. 

I did like his negative/positive feedback explanation and I agree with him that our environment MUST be largely self correcting, otherwise we are already dead very long ago.

FlyOnTheWall on November 5, 2007 at 02:14 pm

DD, I reject as simplistic ideology the idea that we cannot affect the environment through our actions

fly, I didn’t say that humans couldn’t have an affect on our environment per se but that effect is only on the micro or local level and is a short term temporary thing.  The global warming alarmists are operating on an entire different scale, the macro level that has a potential effect lasting millenium.  My point is at the macro level the cosmic factors effecting our overall climate make human effects miniscule in comparison.  There are many ‘real’ climatologists that would agree with that statement.


You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

docdave on November 5, 2007 at 03:25 pm

Oh, there are a few. Just listen for the caterwauling of the environazis, and follow in the general diretion of their waggling fingers and you will find them. And now we are headed out to watch the rather impressive lightning display on this fine Nov 5th, in PA.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on November 5, 2007 at 03:31 pm

Oops, DD! You done hacked off the Creationists and the Secular Humanists, and I bet they is a whole bunch’a other ‘ists that will be torked off by that comment.

One can only hope, 2H, but unlike some that dwell in science fiction projections of life in many other planets, I believe that the earths capablity to support carbon life forms was not an evolutional accident and is unique.  Our limited observations of the universe show it to be spectacularly violent with exploding stars and colliding galaxies of which the smallest occurence in our immediate area (a few light years away) would mean our demise.  How and why our world is as it is and what is keeping it whole are questions that has troubled the minds of philosophers for millenia.


You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

docdave on November 5, 2007 at 03:39 pm
Avatar for Concerned

Regarding Global Warming check out this link.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind8.htm

Concerned on November 5, 2007 at 04:02 pm

Don’t think I’d worry too much about climate control from people that can’t perdict with certainty what the weather will be tomorrow.


You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

docdave on November 5, 2007 at 04:31 pm

Concerned, here is something to actually be concerned about. And something else, just to give you a bit of balance.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on November 5, 2007 at 05:49 pm
Avatar for Brandon Monahan

The problem is that the normal method taken by most global warming doomsayers is to still use the same amount of energy but remove guilt through the purchase of carbon credits.  Well, I for one am tired of the hypocrisy and came up with a way to create carbon debits to heap the guilt back on - check out carboncreditkillers.com

Brandon Monahan on November 5, 2007 at 09:36 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.