Global Warming is a Hoax: Part 2
I would like to thank the graduate students from UC Irvine’s Earth System Science department who wrote an article on Feb. 12 titled ‘Global Warming Grounded in Science‘ in reaction to my Feb. 5 article titled ‘Global Warming Not Proven by Science’ (Note: My original article was published on CollegeTimes as ‘Global Warming is a Hoax‘) I appreciate their effort for a number of reasons, but especially because academic debate is too often absent from the modern university.
Interestingly, their response demonstrates my underlying argument that popular science has become assuming, defensive and media-driven. In saying so, I would like to respond to them.
During World War II, a letter was signed by 100 university professors in Nazi Germany saying that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was incorrect. In response, Einstein stated, ‘If they were correct, one signature would have been enough.’
I am surely no Einstein, but it is fascinating that out of the 22 graduate students that signed their name criticizing me for questioning just how responsible human activities are for causing global temperatures to rise, not one of them provided information that could be used to confirm that mankind is responsible for global warming.
They state, ‘The Earth’s climate has fluctuated naturally over its history on both long and short timescales,’ which is quite true; unfortunately, that is about where their logical thought process ends. I will hereby attempt to refute their other claims.
1. They first argue that global temperatures are rising by stating, ’11 of the last 12 years have been among the 12 warmest years since 1850.’ Well, that’s fantastic. I never argued that temperatures were not rising. If you want to play the year game, however, please remember that global temperatures have actually been on an overall decline since 1998.
2. They cite the United Nations’ IPCC Fourth Assessment Summary, released in January 2007, which ‘confirms with 90 percent confidence’ that human activity is the cause of global warming. Firstly, they might want to look into the reasons behind that 10 percent of uncertainty. Secondly, didn’t this report come out just a few months after a different U.N. report that said cows are now considered the greatest cause of global warming? It sounds to me like there is still quite a debate going on. Perhaps you subscribe to the notion that ‘scientific consensus’ is not an oxymoron, as you claim that controversy ‘no longer exists among scientists.’ In such a case, I pity your research.
3. They claim that I reference unreliable sources. I’m not sure how much more ‘scientific’ I could get than citing the United Nations, the IPCC, the University of California, National Geographic, the USDA Forest Service, etc. Give me a break.
4. They claim that I reference outdated sources. I didn’t realize that reports and interviews from 2006 and 2004 were considered outdated. Furthermore, my point was to compare historical trends in the climate science community, so quite expectedly, I would cite a variety of sources that aren’t all from the last few years.
In regard to criticisms from other UCI students that appeared as letters to the editor in the Feb. 20 issue of the New University:
1. The claim that the Kyoto protocol was rejected under Clinton because of the Republican majority in the Senate: I’m not sure how you make this conclusion when the Senate vote was 99-0. A better argument would call upon economic incentives and a sprinkling of rationality.
2. ‘Why don’t we need an SUV that can seat four people and get 11 miles per gallon of gasoline?’ Once again, cars are the least of our worries from a global warming point of view. Ironically, recent tests by BMW on their Hydrogen 7 series showed that the cars put more strain on the environment than diesel trucks due to the incredible process needed to produce reliable hydrogen fuel.
3. ‘The article title was misleading.’ Fair enough sir, but I didn’t choose it – that is an editorial decision, which frankly shouldn’t have misled you too much if you read the article.
4. ‘May I ask what channels are constantly advocating for action on global warming?’ It’s not that the media advocates this or that, but rather that controversy sells. Long-term controversies are easy time-fillers in between O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson, etc.
5. ‘What about politicians? What about corporations?’ Had you heard much about Al Gore lately until his recent global warming binge? The point is that politicians use controversy as pedestal opportunities, as do corporations. Just ask Terry Schiavo. Oh, wait.
6. ‘We have far surpassed [the Medieval Warming Period’s] warming threshold.’ This is absolutely wrong. Regardless of the graphs that the United Nations has slowly re-edited to coincide with faulty arguments since their 1990 IPCC report on the Medieval Warm Period, it is hard to deny occurrences such as Greenland being settled and farmed by the Vikings during that period, a venture that would be quite impossible today – check out any satellite image of present-day ‘Greenland.’
All in all, the last few weeks at UCI have proven that popular science is no longer scientific in nature. Instead of finding inspiration in curiosity and changing theories based on new evidence, it continues to perpetuate an environment of denial, emotion-driven conclusions and rejection of objectivity. I care deeply for the environment, but I refuse to excuse faulty science and media hype with a sense of duty.
This article was previously published in New U. in 2007
Data is collected and used to fill in the variables in the model, and then a projection is made. If the data is incorrect or fraudulent (see University of East Anglia), then the projection will most likely be incorrect. If the model is faulty (for any number of reasons, but the most likely are failure to include variables or failure to assign them the proper weights), then the projection will most likely be incorrect.
This farce has been going on for the better part of two decades. There is a significant track record for these models. I’m still waiting to see the model that correctly predicted world temperatures for a 20-year period. Or ten years. Or five. If we’re going to crush millions of jobs and spend billions of dollars on a predictive Chicken Little projection, shouldn’t the authors of those predictions be required to provide at least a modest track record of predictive accuracy? Or is that too much to ask?
we have the same damn cold winters, with the same damn amount of snow. don’t see no “Global Warming” affecting me.
next they’ll say it’s “Global Cooling”. :/
btw, i watch Discovery channel as if it were Comedy Central.
Actually it is relevant, to many things. And like I said in my article:
“I care deeply for the environment, but I refuse to excuse faulty science and media hype with a sense of duty.”
If the global warming movement helps people care more the earth, thats awesome. But tricking people, lying to people, and implementing all kinds of policies and cultures based on those lies is WRONG.
it just seems so wrong what they are doing now, there are such serious repercussions to the actions of these climate change fundamentalists. africa is being crucified, having renewable energy foisted on them when they need fossil fuels to develop like we did. you can cover a house roof in solar cells in africa but it’ll still only produce enough power to run a lightbulb or two, the powers that be in the developed world know this. thats why they offer africa a share of their carbon credits, which they have spare now that they are fully developed, in exchange for…?
africas fossil fuels. its a vicious cycle where the first world gets well while the third world gets raped. where are geldof and bono on the issue? backing the developed world of course, africas plight keeps them busy i guess. this is a political travesty disguised as a effort to save humanity. it makes me sick, and the people have become such willing pawns in their games.
Haha, touche boys. It’s so refreshing to hear intelligent people see through the lies and trickery. Especially so many readers from Europe… you guys don’t realize, half of Americans believe this s**t cuz they think everyone in Europe does and we gotta be “more like progressive Europe”… well, hold your breath for the next 8 years while Obama tries to grant their wishes… I’m sure another speech is due in Berlin about climate change! lol
i remember years ago there was a scare that the world was going to cool dangerously fast. should we have flooded our atmosphere with greenhouse gases then to save ourselves? the greenhouse effect is what has sustained life on this planet, who are we to say that it is now a destructive force? i’ve seen no evidence of warming, but if there is perhaps this is simply the natural path for the planet to take. how much greenhouse gas does a volcano produce? or decaying vegetation? or the ocean for that matter?!
yes by the way, water vapour is a greenhouse gas. quick, ban the oceans! and while you’re at it, lets delight the politicians further by putting a carbon tax on all humans, as we are all just greenhouse gas emitting engines really. all that co2, methane and water vapour we produce can only destroy the world, eh? i’m sure that makes perfect sense to some people. i wonder did al gore use a canoe to travel the world promoting his movie…
i’ll never forget the smile on british prime minister gordon browns face when he publicly announced the opening of 6 new nuclear plants in britain. he said they were a clean source of power as they don’t produce co2, exactly what thatchers government was trying to do when they first came up with this whole climate change theory back in the 80’s. but back then, people were still too afraid of nuclear and all its complications so the idea never took hold. different story now sadly.
it doesn’t seem to matter that methane is destroyed in the atmosphere by electrical storm activity. it doesn’t seem to matter that co2 is heavier than air and therefore doesn’t stay in the upper atmosphere, it is dissolved in the oceans. this planet can cope with meteor strikes and asteroid collisions, global killers like the one 65 million years ago. do you really think we are going to doom it by driving your car to the shops?!
it scares me when i hear the hysteria from the climate change terrorists, they brand you a heretic when you disagree. after all, coldplay, josh hartnett and al gore can’t be wrong eh?
Man Made Global Warming advocates will still continue to bang their drums for a long time as it is a belief which welcomes a whole host of other beliefs, from political, to social, even religious. Question such adherents on the science behind MMGW and you are questioning them on these other beliefs, which they are of course heavily invested in. I mean ask yourself, would you see such denunciations of evil, such fanatical trashing of character, occur in a debate over the mating habits of the African fruit fly?
Incidentally, the whole 11 of the last 12 years is bollocks. The hockey stick graph trumpeted so fervently by its adherents has been wholly discredited.
– Sir William Drummond
No, my friend. Regurgitating data from media sources without any second thoughts or exploration is much more “foolish.” Stop contributing to media scare tactics.
LOL. Uh oh, somebody just quoted the Discovery Channel. Shakin’ in my boots. I checked the first link and after a few sentences and scare tactics, I came across this threat:
“Any significant thaw of Antarctica could drown many coastal cities and delta regions. Bigger than Australia, Antarctica holds enough ice to raise global sea levels by 185 feet.”
…and THEN… I stopped reading. What a joke lol. WATER WORLD!!!
https://dsc.discovery.com/guides/discovery-earth-live/podcasts/ice-melt/ice-melt.html
w0w! now that’s str8 up fact (above)
u-r not liking me JJ ? I’m offended by you JJ merely because you haven’t responded to anything I’ve said. I’m truly hurt by your inability to act upon my words of encouragement JJ….I’m telling your mommy! I will not suPPort nor respond to any of your writings NO MORE JJ…………………… :( ………………………
hurt again
rebeKah