Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Man-Made Global Warming Hoax

Here is a great column written by Tom Gremillion. I've not added any editorializing. You can check out the link.

Global warming is a hoax, invented in 1988, that combines old myths including limits to growth, sustainability, the population growth time bomb, the depletion of resources, pollution, anti-Americanism and anti-corporate sentiment and, of all things, fear of an ice age. Those that espoused and supported the old myths have joined forced into a new group called “Environmentalists.”

Most environmentalists have no technical or scientific credentials whatsoever. What they have are major news outlets ready and willing to publicize their every utterance regardless of whether or not they are backed up by scientific proof. Atmospheric science requires highly technical knowledge and skills, not possessed by the vast majority of the so-called environmentalists, who yet feel qualified to demand that human activity subjugate itself to the whims of their new deity, Mother Nature.

Environmentalists claim that the Earth’s atmosphere is getting hotter. They claim that the polar icecaps and glaciers will melt and sea levels will rise over two hundred feet, flooding most coastal cities. They claim that many areas of the Earth will turn into deserts. They make all these claims but cannot substantiate them with real scientific evidence. Parts of the polar icecap and glaciers are melting but other areas of the polar icecaps and glaciers are thickening. The environmentalists base their “proof” of the existence of global warming on the melting areas but are strangely silent, even militant to the point of violence, if anyone mentions the areas that are thickening, and those thickening areas are many.

In the past, there have been many times when the global mean temperatures were warmer, sometimes much warmer and colder, much colder than they are now. Global mean temperatures are cyclical with the seasons but also with other normal cycles, as they have been for the entire history of the Earth. Scientific data from ice cores, tree rings and other indicators of global mean temperatures prove this. Human activity has never been the cause of these global temperature swings as the “global warming” advocates claim. If human activity was the cause, where were the SUVs, the power plants and industries in our historical past? They did not exist. If human activity was not the cause of these global temperature swings, what was?

The energy output of the Sun is far greater in one second than human activity could produce in a million years. The Earth rotates around the Sun. Its orbit is slightly elliptical. The energy reaching the Earth from the Sun varies slightly as the distance from the Sun to the Earth varies due to its elliptical orbit. The Sun activity increases and decreases with fluctuations in the solar flares emitted by the Sun. Differences in these fluctuation rates cause increases and decreases of solar energy hitting the Earth. This causes fluctuations in the global mean temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere.

In 2004, the energy from massive solar flares bombarded the Earth with solar energy. This solar energy caused heating of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. Most of the energy of the solar flare eruptions dissipated into space. The amounts of energy ejected were massive, much greater than normal. Had the Earth received a full blast of the solar energy from one of the numerous flare eruptions in 2004, the consequences to life on Earth could have been disastrous. The higher than usual amounts of energy that struck the Earth’s atmosphere did have their effects, however, including some heating of the atmosphere.

Then there is the eruption of volcanoes, such as Mt. St. Helens, ejecting dust and ash into the Earth’s atmosphere. The amount of dust and ash in the atmosphere varies the amount of energy that can cause heating or cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere. Volcanoes also eject the kind of compounds that environmentalists call greenhouse gases. A single eruption the size of the Mt. St. Helens eruption released more of these gases, dust and ash into the atmosphere than all such emissions by human activity since the beginning of recorded human history. And there are numerous volcanic eruptions yearly.

The oceans are also a major source of greenhouse gases, as are trees. Trees and other vegetation take in carbon dioxide and give off other gases such as methane, a major greenhouse gas, and a host of other compounds, many of which are also greenhouse gases. Decaying vegetation also gives off methane gas. Studies of smog in the Los Angeles basin indicate that over 90% of the smog is generated by the vegetation in the area. To aid in perpetuating the hoax, however, environmentalists, aided by major news media outlets, censored and suppressed this study.

Studies have shown that greenhouse gases produced by human activity accounts for around 1 percent of the gases in the atmosphere. The total elimination of human generated greenhouse gases would have a negligible effect on Earth’s global mean atmospheric temperatures. The elimination of all U.S. gasoline powered vehicles would reduce worldwide “greenhouse” emissions by less than 0.2%.” What would be the effect on global mean temperatures? None. Doubling of manmade greenhouse emissions above current levels would increase the global mean temperature by one degree Centigrade, which is within the normal range of temperature swings.

It is the fluctuations of the Earth’s orbit around the sun, volcanic eruptions, the emission of gases by oceans and trees, all natural occurrences, that cause rises and declines in global mean temperatures, i.e., “global warming” and “global cooling,” not human activity.

Satellite data taken over the past 25 years indicate no surface or atmospheric warming. If anything there has been a very slight cooling, on the order of 0.01 degree Centigrade.

Recently, astronomers have noticed a thinning of the polar icecaps on Mars.

Is this “global warming, Mars style” and do Martian SUVs, power plants, and industries cause it? Hardly, but the “environmentalists” think so. Some even blame it on us here on Earth.

Global warming IS a hoax. Those claiming that “global warming” is real have an agenda other than saving the planet from human activity.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Let's thank Tom for this excellent article!

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

couple of things to keep in mind - tom wrote that article in jan. of 2005. the info is outdated, and he didn't bother to site any sources or back up his ideas.

needless to say, since then, THOUSANDS of scientists from all over the world have all reached the conclusion that human activity is behind the the rapid warming of the earth. yes, greenhouse gases come from many sources, but human activity is creating the majority of that which are posing the threat to our very existence today. as dylan said, "it doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

head on over here, if you'd like, to check out the science behind global climate disruption: http://www.ipcc.ch/ if you want more information, i can provide you with that as well. all sited, from respected sources without any political leanings either direction.

Don said...

Thanks for posting a comment. The Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change is totally political. It's in league with the UN.

Where is the source for 1,000's of scientists reaching the conclusion?

The article is only a year old and things don't change that much.

Thanks again for posting.

Anonymous said...

sure, the ipcc does have political tie-ins, but the scientists who all contributed to the assessments aren't neccesarily driven by politics - nor are they crazy lunatic raving "environmentalists" as tom would lead us to believe. this is but just one group.

did you get a chance to read through the report yet? maybe not the thousands of scientists i mentioned are working with the ipcc, but there are hundreds catalogued within the site. pretty much any source you'll find will say that climate scientists are in majority of agreement.

i spent the summer reading the latest scientific data and other writings for a class. i'm no expert, but i've come to believe that this threat is very real. and that human activity is responsible. it will also be human activity that can save us. we all have a personal responsibility.

scientists have been able to isolate the naturally occuring balance between what nature produces in the way of greenhouse gas emmisions, and what it absorbs back in - and can see that the C02 introdution via the industrial age is twice what the oceans and forests can safely remove - hence the build up - hence the increase in extreme weather we're experiencing, which will only worsen...
(McElroy, M.B. 2002. The Atmospheric Environment: Effects of Human Activity.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.)

might i suggest another read? "the non-nonsense guide to climate change" is fantastic. so is plan b 2.0 - it's listed as a link in my sidebar, under the global warming q&a. it is completely accessable online.

what are tom's credentials, by the way? i can't seem to find anything about him anywhere.

but back to how many scientists agree - you're correct, things don't change that quickly - this was written in 2004, complete with footnotes: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/306/5702/1686

Don said...

I'm a science teacher and an optical physicist. I'm not a stranger to the field of science and these notions. I don't accept the data for several reasons.

1. The earth has undergone tremendous climatic change over eons. It froze and it warmed. Why can't it happen on it's own?

2. The earth has had climate reports for a very short time. 200 years max and that's really stretching it. Standardization is relatively recent. Farhenheit developed the system of measuring temperature with mercury thermometers but that doesn't mean everybody had the same standardization of devices. Reports from 100 years ago could be off by more than 1 or 2 degress in some instances. I'll venture to say more. We can't trust those reports as accurate.

3. The earth has fluxuated climatically over the past 100 years and it can't be blamed on industry. The earth is going to change again.

4. 35 years ago it was global cooling. I was among the concerned. Now it's global warming. Good grief nobody can have it both ways.

5. We can't ignore the sun's role. When it surges all the planets undergo change. Likewise when it doesn't. It has nothing to do with humans. It gets hotter it gets cooler, relatively speaking. I can't tell the difference between 15,000,000' or 14,000,000' except on paper. BTW the sun has been surging over the past 6 years.

6. Mars is undergoing a warming trend. Who's fault is that?

kjam22 said...

When I was in California a couple of weeks ago at software conference, I got to listen to Daniel Kammen during one of the sessions. (you can google him) He's a prof at Berkley. Has been on 60 minuts. One of the premier global warming / alternative fuels experts in our country. Trust me, he's also a political, crazy raving lunatic environmentalist. We listened to him rant for 45 minutes and still tell jokes about him.

He is deeply rooted in politics, and funding. And his best idea as stated by himself personally, is to bury all of the CO2 and carbon emissions.

He went on to boldly proclaim that it's a lie that the creation of ethanol uses more energy than it produces. And in the same paragraph he expressed the need to find alternative methods for making ethanol because currently it does in fact use more energy to create it than it produces.

Global warming is a hoax. And here's why.... this planet was created by God. It is maintained by God. It "works" because God wills it to work. It will continue exactly like God has plannd until God decides to do something different. End of story. It is not up to us. We are not the guardians and we are not the destroyers.

kjam22 said...

One more thing about Daniel Kammen... I asked him if he had a logon id to democratic underground .... I mean I asked him that personally, one on one, after he finished speaking. He proudly, and excitedly informed me that he was a member there.

Here's a link.... www.democraticunderground.com

If you want to read the writings of the crazy, lunatic, left.... it gets no crazier than these guys. They make moveon.org look like a boy scout troop in Rush Springs Oklahoma.

Anonymous said...

looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. i do hope you're right, really i do. and i'd forgotten about the whole god role in all of this. i imagine this is also why many in the u.s. don't care - wanting to spped up the rapture and all.

kjam22 said...

The rapture is in God's hands. We can't speed it up or slow it down. God knows and has known from the beginning of time when it would occure.

Isn't it wonderful that the things we would fret, worry, and stress about are things that God has told us he would take care of? How long the earth will last, when the rapture will occure, and what will happen with our imortal soul. The outcome of each of these are stated in promises made by God.

There are things we can control. Decisions we make every day in our lives that have real outcomes, and consequences. But the bible teaches us that the outcome of planet earth isn't one of those.

God has promised to take care of us. To take care of our imortal souls. To take care of planet earth, and to return for us. Certainly we can REST on those promises.

Have a great day supergirlest !

Anonymous said...

ken - i mean this in the nicest way possible, seriously, i do. i think what you're saying is sort of a cop out. i take that back - fully a cop out. it's much easier to hand off our responsibilities as global citizens to some sort of god then to step up and do the right thing. how do you know that god doesn't want us to act to save he planet?

"woe to those who call evil good and good evil..."

kjam22 said...

How do I know that God doesn't want us to save the planet??? I've read his word. Have you?

Our responsibility as global citizens, and the right thing to do... is to worship God, and love our fellow man.

You can believe if you choose to that you and I can impact planet earth, but the Bible is clear that God controls planet earth. Not you, not me, not Daniel Kammen, not George Bush. The Bible is clear that God has a clear, distinct plan for planet earth.

But don't let me influence your decision. By all means do your part. Sell your car and travel by bicycle. :)

Anonymous said...

the bible is also clear on this - god said what he'd created was good. the earth is good. not once throughout the bible does he take it back. hence, if what he created was good, should we be destroying it? or following his clear direction of stewardship, etc. to protect it? purposefully destroying the earth is going against god, right?

george bush says that god tells him what to do - you mean he isn't a worthy viaduct?

i do my part, wherever, whenever i can. and for the record - i don't have a car.

kjam22 said...

God did say that what he created is good. And he also said exactly what would happen with planet earth. Why are you willing to believe that God said it was good, and not believe what he said was going to happen to planet earth?

You continue to ignore the fact that you and I can't destroy it. Mankind can't destroy it. The earth's future is already written, and solely up to the soverign God.

But I'm glad you're doing your part, if it makes you feel better :)

Don said...

Supergirl,
You're right that we should be good stewards of the earth. If Ken doesn't think so then he's a kook.

That doesn't mean if somebody drives a Suburban or a Humvee that they are a poor steward any more that someone who eats beef hates animals.

One person wants to believe something based on what someone they deem reliable has said and another believes otherwise for the same reason.

kjam22 said...

Don, if you're talking about being a good steward in that we don't litter in a public park so that others can enjoy the natural beauty.... that's one thing.

If you're talking about being a good steward so that we don't cause global warming and the greenhouse effect and destroy planet earth, that's another.

The first one is a legitimate possibility. The second one isn't.

The whole idea that mankind is going to destroy the earth by consuming all the natural resources, or causing climate change that will kill mankind, or destroying the ozone layer or something..... each of these is just silly chicken little the sky is falling ideas.

kjam22 said...

It's like this.... If God wants the earth to wobble and cause a climatic change, there's not a single thing we can do about it. If God wants a big commet to hit earth and cause a cloud to circle the whole planet, there's not a thing we can do about it. If God wants the sun to throw out solar flares that cause all of us to get skin cancer.... there's not a thing we can do about it.

People like Daniel Kammen who spend their entire lives trying to "save the planet" are filled with the misconception that mankind controls it's own collective destiny.

We're here because God wants us to be here. We're hear to serve Him. He provides for us. He is God and we are not. The system works because he wills it to. It's that simple.

Don said...

Ken, I thought that was implied by saying someone who drives a Suburban or a Humvee isn't a poor steward any more than someone that eats beef hates animals.

We should be good stewards of what God gives us. I don't know if she really understands what the Bible says or not. Anybody can quote anything and they will if it looks like it will help their cause.

Remember the devil knows the Bible and is always a liar.

To think that the earth is so fragile that mankind can destroy it is rather arrogant.

I wish the environmentalist would all move to third world countries and clean them up. The USA is just fine.

kjam22 said...

Hey Don,

What do you think about legislation for carbon restrictions on industral facilities and power plants etc. Even to the point that a facility which produces to much carbon can "buy" carbon credits from a more environmentally safe plant. Without buying these carbon credits the facility / company is saddled with huge fines by the government.

Not to mention that the government generally sets up some greenpeace enviro nutcase to manage the government agency that regulates the use of carbon credits.

This type of legislation is passing (in my humble opinion) because government never saw a tax that it didn't like.

California is leading the way by denying the building of new power plants in california. And by mandating through legislation state imposed fines for energy producers doing business with California, who aren't participating in "carbon credit / safe energy production".

Californians are a strange lot. They want cheap energy. They oppose gas fired energy plants, nuke plants, coal fired plants, drilling oil and gas wells, and even wind energy (to many birds get killed in the process). Daniel Kammen says the future is in making ethanol out of sugar cane, because that's the only way it's cheap and uses less energy to make it than it produces. Of course, it's cheap because there is no demand for ethanol made from sugar cane because nobody does it to any extent.

He also says our future rests upon techology that will capture all of the carbon emissions and CO2 emissions and then bury (inject) them in the ground. Supposedly in undergroun caverns. Okay.... that sounds inexpensive :) His plan insures us that in 20 years the average utility bill for the average senior citizen will be substantially more than their social security check.


And the environmentalists have all of these twisted ideas generally based on one set of reasoning. And that set of reasoning is generally, mankind evolved on planet earth. We started our race ourselves, and it is up to us to sustain it. That our very existence and survival is completely dependent on what we do. The thought process is completely void of God's influence.

How can I take someone serious who doesn't even recognize that we're here through creation, and not just dumb luck mutation?

Don said...

There are tooooooo many restrictions on industry.

Anonymous said...

fantastic! i knew it would eventually get to this. "she" isn't interpreting the bible correctly like the two of you are. i just love discussing with people that think they have a direct line to god - and damn be to anyone else who doesn't prescribe to their exact interpretation of whatever bible version they choose to throw themselves behind.

"Anybody can quote anything and they will if it looks like it will help their cause."
great point. something that everyone involved in this conversation would do well to think about. *clearing throat* tom.

i don't think that the earth is fragile at all. if we do enough harm, we're going to be booted. period.

Don said...

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. But the truth be told I don't know if you know the Bible or not. Anybody can quote the Bible but that doesn't mean they understand it. I've heard people quote Voltaire knowing full well they were clueless.

Perhaps you want to believe the part about the devil was aimed at you. It wasn't. Ken could have very well taken the same viewpoint as you on that one.

I don't attack people for their beliefs and disagreeing is not a form of attack. You would do well to take the same approach.

Anonymous said...

wasn't aimed at you, don... i wouldn't say that my words were an attack, so much as an observation that seems fairly consistant when it comes to questions surrounding the interpretation of the bible amongst those who have differing ideas. didn't think the devil comment was aimed at me in the least.

calling someone crazy or a lunatic is an attack. i don't recall that i did either. if i've come off wrong somehow, mea culpa.

as for being good stewards of the earth, where shall we draw the line? agreed - it isn't ok to litter, is it ok for companies to dump poison on our food or in our rivers? and if we're not the guardians of earth, why not just litter?

Don said...

Good to know you weren't attacking. That's such a low thing to do.

I have no idea why anyone would ever think it's okay to pollute. Most companies that have the capability to pollute,don't. It will never be okay to pollute.

We have more laws than necessary. Some are based on "but what if" and not fact. The freon scare is one. There was no evidence of danger but Hollywood and other reliable sources (TIC) kept hollaring "but what if". Many Mom and Pop heating and air companies had to close, giving the large companies a bigger share of the market. Too bad nobody thinks of the little guy. Alar was another thanks to Susan Sarandan. However, common sense won over that one.

No matter how many laws are made somebody is going to break them. No matter the harshness of the consquences for those crimes they are going to be violated. Most states have death for the crime of murder. Why do they still have murder? Speeding has huge fines yet you can't drive anywhere without seeing speeders. The laws and consequences don't stop the crime. Never have and never will.

The most important thing to know is a person's heart must be changed and that can only happen from within. Without a change of heart a change of actions won't occur.

Christianity is much the same way. A person can say they're Christian, act like they are, say all the right things etc... but until they heed the urgings of the Holy Spirit and accept Jesus they'll never have the change of heart to be a Christian.

Don said...

Why did supergirlest changer her name to anonymous?

I didn't know it was possible.

kjam22 said...

I didn't know it was possible either. Maybe that advanced skill level is why she's super???

Maybe they've decided that using "super" in one's screen name somehow contributes to global warming???

:)

Unknown said...

Some interesting thoughts here. Glad I found this blog.
I just watched Oprah (first time!).
Al Gore was the only guest. The show was devoted to his global warming topic, which I watched with an open mind. He made a few salient points, but as far as real scientific conclusive reasoning and methodology, it fails miserably. Yet, the audience was convinced, along with Oprah. She even stated that she "felt" something was happening last summer, because it was so hot. I was stunned. One of the wealthiest women in the world making a dumb-ass comment like that. And sadly, that is how most Americans learn, by watching entertainment shows. We truly have been dumbed down.
God, have mercy on us.