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
Comments? Leave your intelligent feedback down below or consider following CollegeTimes on Facebook or Twitter to stay updated or to get in touch!
Share This Story:
Please scroll down to leave a comment.
Computer models work like this:
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?
Umm I love how you seem to say say you can talk in facts too voiceofreason, but then you go on to “CO2 exists in the greatest concentration in our atmosphere of any of the greenhouse gasses”, really because maybe you should look a little deeper, water vapor is by far and away the largest greenhouse gas, 95% of all greenhouse gas is water vapor next time think and reeducate yourself before you post
Further, a volcano has a net cooling effect on the planet. Wanna know why? Oh that’s right, you don’t know. Because you love to make false pretenses on poor information or a general lack of knowledge right? Well guys, listen up. This is your science lesson of the day from the guy that isn’t retarded. When a volcano erupts, it does emit some gasses, some of which are greenhouse gasses. But there are four layers of atmosphere. Are you still following? I know its complicated. Two of those layers are whats’ called “inverted.” Tough concept but try to follow. It means instead of those layers cooling as they increase in altitude they actually warm. This makes for a very stable layer of atmosphere. Some of the particulate matter erupting from that volcano gets suspended in those stable layers of atmosphere and contribute to the albedo effect. Oh, not familiar with albedo? Why are you writing about climate change again? Oh well nevermind. See, ‘albedo’ is essentially the reflection of solar radiation back into space. Well some of that particulate matter that gets suspended in the atmosphere reflects some of that solar radiation from the sun back into space, which otherwise would have contacted the surface of the earth and would have been converted into infrared radiation (heat) which would have been permanently trapped by greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. See how this works now? Ironically, while volcanoes do emit some greenhouse gasses, they also emit enough particulate matter that gets suspended in the atmosphere to contribute to overall albedo, to the degree that eruptions cause a net cooling effect. How do you live with your ignorance?
For those of you who claim that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming should educate themselves. I can talk in facts too. The global concentration of C02 in our atmosphere now, in contrast to the period prior to the industrial revolution, is orders of magnitude greater. Fortuntately, CO2 is one of the least potent greenhouse gasses. CH4 (methane) most certainly exerts a greater ‘greenhouse’ effect than CO2. By a factor of approximately 4 in fact. If you’ve ever heard of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), they exert a ‘greenhouse’ effect of something like 25 to 30 times that of C02. However, C02 exists in the greatest concentration in our atmosphere of any of the greenhouse gasses, thus still poses a considerable challenge. Especially as global populations continue to grow, human development persists and more and more cars are driven everyday. I recognize that the media lies to us every single day. Of course they use scare tactics to further their agendas. The fact of the matter is, the greenhouse effect is real (or our atmosphere could hold no heat and life would not exist) and we are contributing massive quantities of the types of gasses that facilitate the greenhouse effect every year. Those two facts, with a bit of logical contemplation, more or less proves that our greenhouse gas emissions could potentially cause climate changes. It’s not necessarily that the earth will heat up to unbearable temperatures. Climate is extremely dynamic. Changing the chemistry of the atmosphere potentially changes the climate of the earth. Which might not be too bad for those of you who get to drive cars and live in homes with air conditioning and heat. Though, think of the African farmer, who is not only one of the least responsible for climate change, but also possesses the least ability to adapt. Don’t listen to the media, but recognize that this blog is media. It is not fact, regardless of how vehemently the author would like to suggest. Think for yourselves. Most importantly, LEARN for yourselves!
I like pies in the bu
i’ve been telling everyone i know that “Global Warming” is fake. it’s funny to watch people freaking out over something that’s never going to happen.
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.
Don’t tell Al Gore that, he is used to having that Nobel Prize around!
I understand your view, but frankly no matter what proof comes to light there will always be those who say it’s a lie. A simple example of this is that for years the oil industry were denying the existance of clean energy and all of the time they were suppressing proof of clean energy and deriding anyone who claimed it could be done, now they’re using clean energy sources and hailing themselves as the saviours of the planet. I’m sure that mixed in amongst all the data out there, there will be some that shows what is really happening, because frankly with all of the crap that we are dumping into the ground, and waters and the air we must quite clearly be having some detrimental effect on at least some parts of the enviroment. Sometimes a good scare can wake people up and even if that particular part shows to be wrong, then at least if the person has enough intelligence they can then take a further look into it and find out what’s really going on. Sometimes the truth is ignored because it’s not exciting enough, whereas a really good lie can work wonders, take a look at some of the propagada that was used during WWII (Winston Churchill about disinformation around the D-Day invasion. “Sometimes the truth is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies).
@ thought…
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.
Whether or not global warming/cooling is or is not going to happen is irrelevant, at the end of it all the truth is that we are all on one planet that we and our decendants have to live on, so surely trying to keep it in good condition is intelligent. Use recycleable materials, use cleaner energy sources and tidy up all the crap that we have dumped everywhere, after all if you went home and found that you had to keep all you garbage within the boundaries of your own property you would not like it and pretty soon you would try to find a way of reusing it or disposing in a safe and usable manner. I’m fairly sure that you wouldn’t want to have to take every kilo of your own fecal matter with you every time you moved house never mind all the gallons of urine, and that’s before we even start on food and drink byproducts, wrappers containers, old appliances, etc
it would be good to get away from using oil, but only because the oil producing states have us over a barrel (forgive the pun). if we can produce equal, or close to equal, performance from renewable energy then i’m all for it. if the air powered car ever sees the light of day then i’ll be there to buy it straight away!
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.
@ craig + irish eyes are open…
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 love when they show icebergs melting, with the doomsday music playing in the background in these pro global warming documentaries. don’t they realise that ice shelves retreat every single summer? and can someone tell me how antarctica will melt if temps change from -40 degrees to -39?!
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?
Those who quote statistics in regard to the probability of MMGW actually occurring are presenting a misleading argument. As any statistician would tell you, actual statistical representation can present itself only when all variables are known (e.g. in a bag containing 3 white marbles and 1 black, there is a 1 in 4 chance that the black marble will be picked) or, in exercise’s in logic (all men are mortal, if David is a man, then I can say with 100% certainty that he is mortal). Obviously the latter does not apply. And the former? Well, only if climate modelers are claiming that have totally nailed down all the variables to account for, when it comes to determining climate (they are not). So where exactly is the science in 90%?
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.
“He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.”
– 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.
JJ is a fool
@Unknown…
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!!!
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/guides/discovery-earth-live/podcasts/ice-melt/ice-melt.html
So true. Look at the facts in “The great global warming swindle” (documentary). That has a lot of arguments again Co2 being the cause of global warming is just a big media hype
very strong ind33d__* I refuse to excuse faulty science and media hype with a sense of duty*___________
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