Global Warming Is a Lie

Global Warming is a Lie

Abstract: Global warming is a falsehood, a lie, a fabrication, and people like Al Gore should be held responsible for the fraud being perpetrated on the public. Indeed, the public is being misled about the dangers of global warming, according to numerous writers in this paper. These essays and reports quote from numerous sources that are reportedly valid and that show certain facts about global warming that are not often seen in the mass media reports. Further, the paper points out that there is no need for panic because the glaciers are melting, because this is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Introduction and Main Body of the Paper. According to Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. Writing in Bible Believers; he insists, "We don't have a problem with 'Global Warming.' We have a problem with the loonies that are claiming that it's bad."[1] Gipp says he has a solution for the "loonies" that promote Global Warming as a fact, and that is building asylums in Alaska. You have to realize, he goes on, "...that these people are mentally ill, and the sooner we put them away, the sooner we can get on to 'This bold new challenge facing us.'" On another note, Gipp asserts that if Global Warming were actually true, there would be many positive affects for humans on the planet. One, would be the addition of more land for people to live on ("Overpopulation problem solved"); two, more fresh water; three, more land on which to grow needed crops; four, the savings of fuel because of milder winters; five, less sickness in the winter because of warming temperatures; six, more Ultra Violet rays getting through to the surface of the earth ("UV kills some bacteria"); and seven, longer summer tourist seasons ("More national income"). The Gipp essay goes on to say that the goal of environmentalists is not to "save the earth" but instead to "destroy the American economy." And if indeed Global Warming was a true fact, Gipp adds, he looks forward to seeing "...vast corn fields in Canada and Siberia" and also witnessing "San Francisco being underwater!" Meanwhile, author Joseph L. Bast, writing in the Heartland Institute's publication Heartlander, explains that the scientific case "...against catastrophic global warming"[2] is as strong as the case for continuing to use DDT (which is banned in most countries, including the U.S.). Bast believes that there are eight reasons why Global Warming science is actually a "scam." First, he writes, more than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition - which has been circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - that takes the following position: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Secondly, Bast assures readers of his essay that the "most reliable" scientific temperature data show "no Global Warming trend." Readings began being taken 23 years ago by satellite show no warming trends, Bast goes on, and those satellite readings are accurate to within 0.01(C. The only data that shows warming trends come from land-based stations, and these stations are not globally consistent, he explains. Thirdly, the climate models that supposedly predict a disastrous future due to Global Warming are "too crude" to be accurate, Bast writes; further, those predictions are based on computer models, not on historical data. He also insists that climate modelers deliberately tweak the computers so the data that comes out will be "close to their designers' expectations." Best quotes a journalist who writes for the journal Science (Richard A. Kerr) as saying "...climate modelers have been 'cheating' for so long it's almost become respectable." Joseph Bast offers his fourth reason for rejecting Global Warming by attacking the United Nations-led international scientific research initiative, the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (IPCC). He writes that the IPCC admits that the study of atmospheric dynamics is "chaotic" and that even "small perturbations in initial conditions" can send the data off the track. Therefore, he believes that the IPCC reports are not reliable. The fifth reason Bast presents to readers is based on his assertion that there was a mild climate change during the Medieval Warm Period (about 800 to 1200 AD) during which time the Vikings settled in Greenland, which is "presently inhospitable." So, he is saying there have been periods of climate change before, and the world recovered and went back into a cooler period. The sixth Bast assertion attacking those who support Global Warming is that if, by the year 2012, the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by 7 percent below the levels seen in the 1990s, it would cause "higher energy taxes." It would also force 2.4 million people from their jobs and eliminate about $300 billion in annual U.S. economic output. Number seven from Bast: state governments like New Jersey's - that pass legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - are a waste of time and "destroy jobs and waste money." And the last Bast contention is that "if the science becomes more compelling" in the future, then and only then would it be prudent to invest in "atmospheric research" and make plans for reducing emissions "only when such investments make economic sense in their own right." Another writer who finds Global Warming a false idea is Andrew G. Marshall ("Global Warming: A Convenient Lie"), whose article appears in Global Research. Marshall begins his essay by explaining that there are warming trends currently throughout the Solar System; many astronomers, he writes, believe that "Pluto has been experiencing global warming..."[3] which may be a seasonal dynamic. Jupiter, too, along with Mars and Neptune's largest moon, Triton, is experiencing a warming pattern. This leads Marshall to believe that the sun may be hotter than it has been in the past 1,000; hence it is a matter of an overheated sun, not man-made greenhouse gases that cause the earth to heat up. Marshall quotes Claude Allegre, whom Marshall calls "a leading French scientist," warned of the dangers of Global Warming over 20 years ago. But now, Marshall goes on, Allegre believes that "...increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes from natural phenomena." And Allegre insists that there is no justification for anyone saying at this point that the "science is settled." All the talk about great danger and looming disaster resulting from climate change is "bloated and highly exaggerated," according to Marshall's paraphrasing of Allegre's work and beliefs. Another expert in the field that Marshall brings into his essay is Nigel Calder, who is a former editor of New Scientist; writing in the UK Sunday Times recently, Calder flatly stated that "When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works." Calder also used a juxtaposition to make his point, noting that journalists have a love affair with headlines about "heat waves" but they conveniently ignore the past winter's "billion-dollar loss of California crops" - which was due to a unusual heavy frost. That story wound up in the business pages, Calder - paraphrased and quoted in Marshall's piece - complained, while anything about heat or climate change makes the front page, presumably because it is more controversial and plays into the hands of the pro-Global Warming crowd. Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is filled with "graphs and charts" so it "must be true," Marshall writes, cryptically. But Marshall goes on to say that Gore is not a Climatologist, or a meteorologist, or an astronomer or "scientist of any kind" - he is a "politician." Unfortunately, Marshall explains, because Gore won an Academy Award, he has become popular and that popularity has "spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate." Gore's rising popularity has, Marshall goes on, forced many scientists to speak out against Gore. A group of scientists recently stated, Marshall insists, that there is so little evidence to prove Global Warming that the whole concept is "a sham." He doesn't name the scientists, but he goes on to say that the same "group of scientists" believe "warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels." Another point Marshall emphasizes is that of the 2,000 or so scientists who have contributed to the IPCC reports there were scientists who "disagreed with its findings" albeit their names were included with the other scientists who agreed. Hence, the report is "a sham," Marshall argues. The Washington Times published an article in 2007 that claimed those who are skeptical of Global Warming are "treated like a pariah," Marshall goes on. And those same skeptical scientists are "increasingly coming under attack" when they express their minority views on the subject; in fact, one climatologist in Oregon was reportedly nearly "stripped of his position" by the governor of Oregon for speaking out against the official position that Global Warming is indeed a reality. What Marshall does to bolster his argument that Global Warming is a sham is quote from scientists and experts in the field who are doubters; for example, Dr. Boris Winterhaiter, a professor of marine geology in Australia, claims that Al Gore's movie is full of "circumstantial arguments." And those arguments, Winterhaiter is quoted as saying, "are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention," the professor asserts. When glacier walls break, that is a "normally occurring phenomenon" which is caused by the "advance of the glacier" (according to Winterhaiter). Going back to his original theory presented at the outset of his article, Marshall asks, if a majority of scientific opinion shows that Global Warming is caused by the sun, they how will reducing carbon emissions possibly be of any help? And moreover, Marshall continues, "How does driving cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton?" He asks, "Can Al Gore please fill me in on this." Noel Gibeson is the President, CEO, and print and radio commentator for the Mount Vernon Institute, a conservative "think tank." He writes in the Free Market News Network (FMNN) that Gore's movie is based on "...a political agenda rather than good science."[4] If the government listened to what Gore is suggesting in his movie and his speeches, Gibeson writes, it would create "even more regulations" which will "hinder business" and increase the costs of doing business. Everything would cost more and that would hurt consumers, the poor and elderly and also result in plants closings, job layoffs, and in the big picture the "Left" (liberals) don't understand "basic economics," he insists. Al Gore had many opportunities - during his tour to promote his book and during the preparation to accept the Nobel Prize he received - to debate "real climatologists" about the causes of global warming, Gibeson says. "He refused each one," Gibeson goes on, because he was afraid to debate "anyone who knew something about the topic that he did not already agree with." His "faulty science" would have been challenged during any debate, according to Gibeson, and his facts would have been challenged to the point of his personal and public embarrassment. "Facts were never part of his equation." And furthermore, Gibeson continues, the United Nations' research reports are in and therefore the public is being told "there is no need for any further discussion," which is a socialist-collectivist mentality" that is untruthful. While attacking Al Gore's contentions about global warming, Gibeson does also say that person energy use is something that citizens should take responsibility for. He disagrees though with the idea that government should mandate reduction of person carbon footprints; "After all, we have free will, we live on the same planet," and so citizens should take steps to protect the environment along with "our own economic interests." But he warns that steps should be taken to prevent the "Left's...plan to tax all of us with an environmental tax...And they must be stopped." Finally, the American Policy Center (APC) has published a white paper report headed "There is No Global Warming."[5] Contrary to reports of global warming, the APC contends, scientific research - through "U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements" - shows that the temperature of the atmosphere is "actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius." In a little different approach to the issue - not always attacking Al Gore and the United Nations - the APC uses its own information to point out that there is no global warming crisis. For example, changes in the temperature in the atmosphere "are natural," the APC reports. And the recent severe weather can be attributed to a "natural phenomenon" that occurs every few years called "El Nino." El Nino causes the temperature of the ocean to rise because of trade winds reversing their natural flow, APC says. But what about the melting of the polar ice cap? "Well, yes it is," the report continues. And the polar ice cap has been melting "for about a million years or so" because the world is now experiencing the end of an ice age. And one day, humans will be able to take "tropical vacations at the North Pole - and it will be perfectly natural," APC's report explains. There are two kinds of scientists, the report puts forward. One kind of scientist researcher looks at facts and "makes their judgments based on what they know." This particular kind of scientist shares data with other scientists, and reaches the same conclusions. This is called "peer reviewing" and it is the "only true science," the APC continues. And then there are those "...who yearn for a certain outcome" and go about finding the data to back up their wishes. These scientists "create the needed data" to arrive at a pre-determined agenda, the report accuses. Most often this group of scientists are "greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda" and those funding sources usually "demand desired outcomes for their money." The APC report attacks NASA; many NASA have "fallen into this trap" of taking money from funding sources that have a political agenda that is often a "green agenda.' Instead of concentrating on space travel and research of the cosmos, NASA, APC insists, has justified "shuttle trips through the use of earth-directed environmental research." The report cites a 1992 shuttle flight during which a team of three NASA scientists was studying atmospheric conditions over North America to try to learn if the Ozone layer was in trouble of thinning out to dangerous levels. Most scientists are careful not to jump to conclusions; but these scientists were "green zealots" and even though they weren't positive of what they found, they "rushed to the microphone, with all the drama of a Hollywood movie, and announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an Ozone hole over North America." This resulted in a ban on Freon, which the APC writers (not identified in the publication) content was premature. And a couple months later, NASA admitted that "further research had shown that there was no such damage" to the Ozone level over North America. The point that the APC materials put forward in this document is that a more careful strategy of research needs to be put in place without the emotional baggage of flawed science. The report also alludes to the fact that a "Gallup Poll of eminent North American climatologists shoed that 83 percent of them debunked the global warming theory." Conclusion: The materials presented in this paper clearly show that there is no consensus among writers and scientists as to the validity of the claims of Global Warming. Whether one chooses to believe the assertions in this paper, or assertions made by scientists who worked with the UN on the IPCC report, is an entirely personal choice. But what really matters is that citizens should be informed about all sides of the issue before buying into any one particular position. Works Cited American Policy Center. (2006). There is No Global Warming. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm.