The Great Lie – Global Warming
 

The Great Lie – Global Warming

‘Cap and Trade’ is being brought again as a method to control Global Warming, more frequently described today as anthropogenic climate change. This change in terminology has come about as a result of the recognition that this earth is not getting warmer, but is entering a cooling period.

‘Cap and Trade’ requires that the ‘developed’ world either pay taxes on all carbon dioxide emitted or pay other countries for carbon trades. What would this mean for the US? We would immediately become non-competitive in a number of areas including metal production and refining, casting, forging, ship building, offshore oil rig production, heavy equipment manufacture (goodbye Caterpillar) and mining to name a few. Where would this work be done? In China, of course. China is not regarded as a part of the developed world and consequently can continue as not only the largest source of CO2 in the world but take in all this industry and increase its CO2 output without limits or penalties. The work will continue to be done, the worldwide output of CO2 will not be cut and the United States will have forfeited its entire heavy industrial base. The economic implications are immense. We would become a third world country.

The reason behind all of this is the Global Warming hysteria. To accept Global Warming as reality, you need to accept the following:

(1) The world is getting warmer.
(2) Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the largest contributor to the ‘greenhouse effect’ – the cause of global warming.
(3) The cause of this increase is man’s activity, particularly the increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide release.

In the short run, #1 is clearly untrue and we cannot be sure of the long term since we are into an interglacial period that started about 18,000 years ago, ending the Pleistocene Ice Age. As we look at the history of the earth, interglacial periods typically seem to last from 15,000 to 20,000 years. The glacial periods last approximately 100,000 years.

During interglacial periods, there are cycles that occur. One of these is the 40-year cycle that causes short periods of global temperature increase followed by short periods of global temperature drop. This country has seen these periods. In the 1890’s we had very low temperatures, by the 1930’s we were in the hottest decade for which we have had accurate temperature records, the climate then cooled until the late 60’s/early 70’s when all the environmental whackos were talking about the next ice age. The warming peaked in 1998, when the temperature came within .01 degrees of the hottest year in the century – 1934. Since then, cooling. We can expect the cooling to continue into the 2030/2040 decades.

#2 is the easiest idea to debunk. When you ignore water vapor (you know the stuff that makes it sticky in summer) CO2 is effectively 72% of greenhouse gases. The big qualification is that you ignore not only water vapor, but water droplets (clouds) as well. This is ignoring the 500 lb Gorilla. Water vapor makes up approximately 95% of greenhouse gases. This reduces the CO2 contribution to 3.6% - not a significant number. But the situation becomes even more farcical.

#3 says that mankind is important! When will we learn? We contribute through our activities approximately .001% of the water vapor, 3.2% of the CO2, 18% of the methane, 5% of nitrous oxide (N2O) and 66% of the CFC’s and other gases. To sum it up, we cause less than 0.3% of the greenhouse gas effect.

Why then the continuing push on Global Warming? The answer is unfortunately easy and all too typical – money! If you are a scientist and you want a study funded and you put in for a study on the mating habits of the Emperor Penguin, you will probably not be funded; however if you ask for funds on the study of the impact of global warming on the mating habits of the do-do bird or the passenger pigeon, you probably will be funded.

These studies are, of course, small change. The big money will be made in the trading of the rights to create CO2. These rights will make the trading of energy futures (think Enron) bush league. Entire nations will prosper or fail based upon these and the traders may become the wealthiest men in the world. Chief among the established traders is Al Gore.

Great post. The most honest, straightforward account of the Global Warming scam I've read yet. Thank you.

I've asked this question before: Does anyone know with certainty what the temperature and climate around the Earth is supposed to actually be?

If we don't know that, how can we be sure whether the planet is supposed to be warmer, colder, air more oxygen-rich, air more nitrogen-rich, more humid, more dry, or anything else? Does mankind in its arrogance really believe it can keep the climate of the planet fixed at any static level? And if so, why? Do we know whether it is more harmful to the planet to keep it environmentally stationary level?

The polar bear population is getting smaller because heir environment is shrinking. Well, there was a time when there were no polar bears, or several oher species, and many species ceased to exist over the last few thousand years.

Get real... It is happening
 

We said similar things about cigarettes and cancer, agent orange no problem... asbestos

WAKE UP ....before it is too late. Your grandchildren will pay the price....

:crap2:

Well, they used to call it global warming but now they know we're not warming up so now they call it climate change. Back when I was a kid the headlines were saying we were headed for the next ice age. Now we are warming up...but wait.. now we are cooling off again.

How long have we been measuring the earth temperature? What, a hundred years maybe? I understand the earth has been around for millions of years. Hum...

What a huge scam. I can't believe anyone would buy into this LOL. As they say, follow the money...

Next week I'm putting my bridge up for sale if anyone is interested.

There are even more conditions that must exist before it would be worthwhile doing anything about CO2 emissions:

(4) If the world is getting warmer, the warming would have to result in such catastrophic impacts to make the "cure" less onerous than the sickness. I have seen no scientific consensus that the disease (climate change) will necessarily be catastrophic. In fact, I have seen some studies which indicate there may even be a net positive with global warming. However, the cure (reduction of greenhouse gases and its impact on our economy), would most likely be devastating to our way of life.

(5) The cost for a "cure" would have to be less than the cost of adaptation for it to be worthwhile. Some studies have indicated that it would be cheaper to just spend money to adapt to change.

I guess I'm a little "old school" when these Chicken Little type hysteria cries occur - Who is making a buck on it?

If people are getting rich on an hysteria of any kind - through book sales, speaking engagements, honoraria, taxpayer-funded research, et cetera - then the profiteers of the hysteria have compromised any credibility in the quest to continue the incoming money stream. That does not mean they won'[t have their followers, because it often happens that the followers who make the profiteers rich WANT to follow something, anything that sounds righteous.

That does not mean that pollution control isn't a good thing to do. However, when the goal is to crucify American industry so that what is made here cannot be any longer, and the industrial base shifts offshore to nations which practice little if any pollution control, that's illogical and dangerous.

The reverse argument is that the US may become the world leader in green technology if extreme pollution control done under the banner of Global Warming occurs. However, that presupposes there is a market for the so-called green technologies, and that the market will be there when and if green products are developed and fielded before the economy totally tanks. In addition, who is willing to invest in green product development, or is this another "stick the taxpayer" scheme?

What a gamble! The US would be betting on a 100-1 shot, and China is a guaranteed winner no matter what.

Worthwhile reading if you dare.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Overkill-Whatever-Happened-Common/dp/0895265125[/ame]

Just a couple of more points:

1. The arctic polar ice cap is back to the same size that it was in 1979 - well before the global warming hysteria. The growth of the ice sheet can be attributed to the same thing that caused its shrinking - changes in prevailing winds and currents.
2. The polar bear population is not shrinking, it is growing. Estimate at 5,000 in 1950, it has increased to about 25,000 today. This restoration of the bear population is credited primarily to hunting restrictions which are and should be continued.
3. The antarctic ice cap (many times larger than all other ice existent in the world combined) is growing. It is now more than 1,000,000 sq kilometers larger in surface area than its historic average for this month of the year.
4. Increasingly leading political and scientific leaders are speaking out against this lunacy. The President of the EU, Valac Klaus, gave the keynote address at The second annual International Conference on Climate Change(ICCC) held this March in New York City. This is an organization that believes that the current ongoing global warming hysteria is not only untrue/unjustified but also very dangerous.

There should never have been a time for the following of the goreacle, however, continued support of his ideas by our leaders will guarantee that the United States becomes a third world nation. Please take time to write our elected representatives and tell them that the Senate did the right think in rejecting Kyoto and must continue to do so now.

The troubling aspect of the global warming hysteria is why doesn't the other side of the story ever get any press? The politicians and the media portray global warming as a fact but don't allow any intelligent discussion of the facts with those with opposing views. There are noted scientists the world over who dispute the theory.

On is Dr. Richard Lindzen who has been the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT for over 25 years, This MIT professor is one of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists. He said global warming hysteria is more about a political agenda and has nothing to do with science. He is quoted as saying "I think [there is] one point you should notice as one discusses the science, and that is that global warming alarm -- as far as I can tell -- has always been a political movement, a highly organized one, and although it took me a while to realize this, opposing it has always been an uphill battle." His counterparts in Australia and other countries agree with him but you'll never hear about it in our controlled and cleansed media. The sheep simply follow.

Here is one answer to the above question; this is what happens to those who object to global warming hysteria:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IwMmQ5MDg5M2M=

Add this to RFK Jr. calling it treasonous to object to the "correct" view on climate change, Al Gore declaring the issue "closed" and you get to the bottom line: while the left continues to blast conservatives as "anti-science" it is they who are against the free flow of scientific ideas.

Seems to be getting warmer.....

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=7461728

Colagal,

Thank you for taking the time to look at the issue. Your post references recent news articles that support the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Unfortunately, these ‘expert reporters’ fail to look at the total picture. There is truth in what they report, but there is also deliberate overlooking of data that disagrees with their reports.

1. The report does not note that the Antarctic is coming to the end of summer and that the potential of sloughing off of icebergs that equate in total to the size of Rhode Island is normal.
2. While the spauning of even several iceberg the size of Rhode Island sounds like a big deal, it is important to note that the Antarctic ice sheet has grown by more than area of Texas and California combined. Anyone who has driven through these three states will appreciate the magnitude of the difference.
IMHO, we do not need to concern ourselves with global warming, but rather in preparing for the next glacial period. At the end of the last one, some 18,000 years ago, sea levels were more than 300 feet below where they are today and the average surface temperature was 16 degrees Fahrenheit below where it is today. The surface of the earth, outside of the ice fields consisted primarily of Tundra and deserts. In terms of history, we are much closer to a glacial period that we are to continuing our interglacial period. Interglacial periods typically have lasted for 15 to 20 thousand years. Glacial periods, on the other hand, typically last over 100,00 years!

I do believe that we need to prepare for a glacial period much more than a slight abnormality in our current interglacial period.

Just my thoughts,

Wayne

Worst Case Scenario
 

Worst case scenario is that we make the planet uninhabitable for humans and some other life forms. Which could happen regardless of what we do.

But the planet itself will be fine, and some life forms will adapt and survive.

Well, maybe it's now time to find out if the American Express Card really has no limit, and if a 100-year mortgage with payments not due until year 85 is possible.

Now I understand......The Democrats and Republicans really have been working together. Their bipartisan plan is based on the concept of a large national debt mated to the belief that there will be nobody around to collect. Brilliant!