Global Warming is a Hoax

By   |  January 11, 2009

Did you know Greenland actually used to be green? Indeed, it was settled and tilled by the Vikings during the Medieval Warm Period! (c) NASA

As it turns out, popular science does believe in the Apocalypse. However, instead of lifting the veil on truth, as etymologically implied, it seems to insist the world is ending, faulting humans themselves for causing a man-made global warming.

Throughout history, politicians have used fear to control their constituencies. Within the last century however, they have been joined by corporations and the media in a massive orgy that purposefully provokes conflicts, crises, and confrontations to further their respective goals.

Remember Y2K? Mad cow disease? What about SARS, bird flu, killer bees, or any other ridiculous fear-mongering scheme employed by these powerful groups at the expense of the rest of us?

Perhaps it is too soon to predict, but I dare say our current global warming scare will one day lie alongside these others in the grave of hysteria, or at least will be seen for what it is – the natural ebb and flow of the universe.

“The world is getting warmer,” wrote a National Geographic reader in a letter printed in the June 2004 issue. “We flatter ourselves to imagine we can be the cause or the cure.”

Nothing could be closer to the truth. The reader was responding to findings announced in the magazine’s February 2004 issue that, even as humans dump 8 billion metric tons of carbon into the air each year, less than half of that amount actually remains in the atmosphere. The article goes on to explain how, in an amazing phenomenon of nature, oceans and forests are acting as natural carbon sinks by absorbing vast amounts of carbon and cycling it back into the earth’s system.

According to the USDA Forest Service, forests in the United States remove 17 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions per year. That is equivalent to removing the carbon emissions from 235 million automobiles each year.

In September 2006, U.S. Senator James Inhofe gave a speech on the Senate floor that received little attention in the American media. Perhaps it was because he was criticizing them. Senator Inhofe pointed out hundreds of examples since the turn of the 20th century in which the media has flip-flopped on climate issues in a general disregard for objective research. In the early 1900s, a severe ice age was predicted; in the 1930s, a global warming scare took over; in the 1970s, an ice age was once again predicted, and in the 1990s a global warming scare reappeared. Yet, even according to a 1990 United Nations report, the Medieval Warm Period that occurred around 1000-1300 A.D. was significantly warmer than any current temperature trends.

In November of the same year (2006), the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly released a report that drastically downgraded man’s impact on global climate. A few weeks later, the U.N. released a second report acknowledging that cows are now considered the greatest threat to global climate. In fact, the report states that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of all greenhouse gases that cause global warming – more than cars, planes, and all other forms of transport put together. Of course, the U.N. forgot to mention the millions of tons of methane produced by termite farts and rice paddies each year.

Perhaps instead of condemning SUVs and coal factories, we should be slaughtering cattle and Vietnamese rice farmers.

Nothing is as tiring as the myths that surround the Kyoto protocol. “More trees, less Bush!” seems to be a popular chant of Kyoto supporters, unaware that the protocol was rejected by a U.S. Senate vote of 99-0 under the Clinton administration. In addition, the majority of industrialized nations that ratified Kyoto are not on track to meet their emission reduction targets for 2008. (January 2009 update: More than half of the nations that signed Kyoto have failed to meet their 2008 emission reduction targets, however the UN has claimed “success” due to the collapse of the Soviet Union…)

UC Irvine’s own Earth System Science department is one of the most recognized departments in the world dedicated to earth system research. Among its faculty there is one Nobel Prize winner, and multiple participants on the U.N.’s IPCC.

When asked to compare current convictions within the climate science community to those of 1975 when Newsweek magazine predicted a massive ice age, Susan Trumbore, a researcher involved with UCI’s climate program, stated, “The process of science is one where hypotheses are put forward, tested, and discarded if they fail the test. Knowledge progresses through this process, even if it seems painfully slow to those who want a simple or a complete answer.”

I asked her to clarify what UCI’s program had concluded in regard to the fact that global temperatures decreased significantly from 1940-1965, a period of rapid industrialization. She replied, “UCI’s program does not take positions… the warming that has been observed since [1965], however, cannot be explained without including the effects of greenhouse gases. The fact that we now have [higher] levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide [means that] it is possible that we are going to melt our remaining ice sheets.” She added, “Scientists tend to be conservative about making sweeping statements.” (LOL)

There seems to be one key element missing from the assuming, defensive, media-driven “science” we observe today: the scientific method. I’m “glad” that controversy translates into more federal grants for academic research programs; I just wish that when the truth confronted us, we would have more courage to embrace objectivity. With any luck, we will one day find the balance between the rational needs of today and the hopeful goals of tomorrow. But according to South Park, the end of the world has already begun; it started two days before the day after tomorrow.

This article was previously published in New U. in 2007

A.K.A. “Global Warming not Proven by Science” and “Global Warming Scare Driven by the Media”

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:

Page ID #34765  -  Last updated on
Tags:  

Please scroll down to leave a comment.

24 Comments on “Global Warming is a Hoax”  (RSS)

  1. Another article on the “Global Warming Hoax” bereft of facts, logic, and honesty. …this one doesn’t even seem to have an author brave enough to identify him/herself.

    Pick your scientific authority–whether the IPCC, the Academy of Sciences, NASA, the Royal Society, the BAAS–and it will tell you that global warming is happening, that man is causing it, and that it is going to engender some very, very big problems very soon. Indeed, they have probably already started.

    For anyone interested, here are a few good places to start:

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/30/global-warming-economics-low-cost-high-benefit/

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/22/an-introduction-to-global-warming-impacts-hell-and-high-water/

  2. And what about this 99-0 vote? Are you referring to the 95-0 vote in July 1997? This resolution was a nonbinding “sense of the Senate” resolution stating that the Senate believes certain conditions should be met before the US should become a party to an agreement. The agreement hadn’t even been negotiated yet. If I’ve got the wrong vote, which was the correct one?

    Thanks.

  3. JJ, there seems to be one key element missing from your arguments against the gloabal warming “hoax”: logic. To address your actual points:

    Y2K, SARS, bird flu: The problem with addressing one-time global incidents is that by definition you can’t use the scientific method to evaluate your efforts. Consider: I manage a bank branch. Crime rates are going up in the neighborhood. I install a better security system. The bank is not robbed. How do I know whether my efforts were responsible for the lack of robbery? I need a control group: Several banks in the neighborhood, of which some improved their alarm systems and some did not. With the environment, as with global pandemics, we have no control group.

    Less than half of the 8 billion tons of carbon dioxide we add to the atmosphere every year remain in the atmosphere; US forests remove 17 percent of US carbon emissions: Two rebuttals.

    First: If I tell you that I leave a pair of socks on my bedroom floor every night, and also on Saturday morning, for a total of eight a week, you might imagine that my wife hates this. Now, if I tell you that my dog eats five pairs of socks a week, so less than half of the socks remain on the floor, would you then think that my wife must be fine with the situation? Of course not. After four weeks, there are 24 socks on the floor instead of 64, but there are still 24 socks on the floor. In other words, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is increasing, but not at a rate of 8 billion tons a year.

    Second: The more than 4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide are mostly going into the ocean, making the ocean more acidic and increasing its ability to retain heat. If the oceans warm, they warm the atmosphere. They also release more water vapor into the atmosphere, which, like carbon dioxide, contributes to the greenhouse effect. Therefore, the fact that some of the carbon dioxide is going into the ocean does not mean that it is not contributing to the warming of the earth.

    The point is a straw man argument. It doesn’t actually rebut the hypothesis of global warming. It’s like saying, “You are wrong to accuse me of mugging that poor old lady, because I draw a regular paycheck from my day job.” There is no logical implication to relate the two propositions.

    Cows are the greatest threat to the environment: Who do you think is responsible for the cows? Human activity is just as responsible for cow farts as it is for automobile exhaust. If your neighbor’s dog poops on your vegetable garden, your neighbor is responsible.

    Kyoto protocol: Another logical fallacy. The fact that a response to a problem is ineffective does not disprove the existence of the problem, nor does it disprove the hypothetical explanation of the problem that motivated the solution. For example: If I think my bus is late every morning because there are too many cars on the road, I might put up a sign saying, “please take the bus to work and leave your cars at home”. Now suppose my bus continues to be late, because very few people actually pay attention to the signs, and almost everyone keeps driving to work, so the traffic remains heavy. Does that mean that the traffic wasn’t actually heavy, or that my hypothesis (that the bus was delayed by heavy traffic) was incorrect? No, it does not.

    Predictions of global cooling in the 1970s: the fact that a prior hypothesis was incorrect does not imply that subsequent hypotheses
    are incorrect. It rather suggests that they are more likely to be correct. For example, imagine that I ride my skateboard down a long hill every day, and they’re resurfacing the road on that hill, and I think that the new smoother surface will shorten my trip time. But instead, I find that it takes longer to get down the hill. I have to reject my old hypothesis and come up with one that explains the new facts. Perhaps it is because the new surface is stickier. It doesn’t really matter. What matters is this: In the 70’s, people had noted the warming climate, and assumed that particulate pollution would block the sun’s energy and cause the planet to cool, just as the planet cools after a large eruption of volcanic ash. Instead, they noted that the warming trend accelerated, and they had to reject their old hypothesis and come up with a new one. More powerful climate modeling techniques allowed them to show that the heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases far outweighs the reflective effect of particulate matter in the upper atmosphere.

    So I would like to ask you to have the courage to embrace logic, and offer argumens that actually address the scientific evidence at hand, rather than dismissing it or obscuring it with straw man arguments and logical fallacies. If that happens, maybe our country and our world will actually improve.

    Thanks.

  4. Hey JJ, even if it is a myth for me its better for us to do something against global warming cause we lose nothing, its time for people not to be dependent on a irrenewable source of energy that caused us wars and health problems. now lets say that we keep what we are doing right now and then you are wrong then we are all doomed

  5. Oh… Somewhere here near the equator were being roasted alive. I’ll walk to the next corner to buy coke and I’m sweating like I just did a 45 minute cardio when I came back home.

  6. Gigantes, the problem is that everyone produces garbage, but noone wants to take responsibility so they deride, demean and ignore those who say “BE RESPONSIBLE”,they figure the easiest way to deal with the problem is to pretend that there is no problem, and if their descendants turn round and say what’s with all the mess, they’ll just say, “Oh, it’s what our ancestors did, it’s not our fault.
    Future generations will look back on our times and turn away in disgust, much the way our generation sneer at the people of the middle ages, etc.
    To all those who will no doubt have a go at what I’ve written, hey, be proud in your filth.

  7. One thing you gotta hand the blogs and articles by skeptics- they have become more articulate, skillful with rhetoric, and masterfully manipulative with facts over the years. Meaning that even well-meaning people who haven’t studied the sciences much are more at risk than ever for being manipulated. IMO, of course.

    Because as far as I can tell, every single statement in ‘articles’ like this are based on rhetoric and manipulation of facts. Meaning, if you want to learn the reality of global climate change and related issues, find out what reliable sources have to say, such as the national academies of science across the world, or various sources which disseminate their findings, such as encyclopedias and reputable internet sites like “how stuff works”. Enough said, I would sincerely hope.

    In any case, I do find this whole situation amusing yet sad, since so many people are willing to postulate massive conspiracies by the green industry, liberals, and people like Al Gore, specifically, with little, or more typically, absolutely zero, facts to back any of those accusations up. While at the same time, Exxon-Mobile and the rest of the energy industry have been waging a campaign (designed by largely the same think tank that waged the tobacco industry campaign) for over 20 years to manipulate public opinion on this issue, and MUCH OF THE FUNDING IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD, AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE TO LOOK UP IF THEY CHOOSE.

    What’s even more sad is, you don’t even need to be someone who needs to listen to either side in order to understand the situation that humanity is in, yet people as a whole neglect to do this.

    I mean, think about it- what do you think is bound to happen to a civilisation based on non-renewable resources (coal, oil and rare earth elements are the ‘big three’) which are being relied upon by more and more growing nations (hello, China and India) across the world, yet which exist in absolutely limited quantities… and are projected to run out sooner rather than later (hello, “peak oil”, which already may be upon us).

    How much refuse do you honestly think can continue to be dumped in our rivers, lakes, land and atmosphere (and even in our orbit) without it eventually causing an impact? Because despite regulations here and there, the problem continues to worsen, globally.

    How do you explain that we are currently in one of the greatest extinctions of biomass and species diversity in the entire history of earth (including the ice ages)? Is it truly nothing to do with man; i.e., mere coincidence? Small side note- have you read about the rate that coral reefs are dying and do you understand how key they are to much of the world’s game fish? Not to mention, the entire food chain?

    How long do you think you can keep buying your groceries and goods that others produce for you and keep throwing away most of it in non-recyclable forms? How long do you expect such a situation to last? Do you know how long it takes natural forces to recycle plastic? Have you heard about the two new continents, “The Great Pacific Garbage Patch” and “The Great Atlantic Patch”?

    In short, where does an unending stream of garbage go?

    The types of questions are many, and the sources of them come up again and again in every day news. Which is why I don’t think a person needs a Master’s Degree in Science or a degree in fundamentalism by a Christian University in order to deal make sense of.

    Because we live in the age of information, and reputable information is more than ever at your fingertips, these days. Which is why I would urge any free-thinking person to do their homework, and not to rely on opinion pieces such as this (or the ones that lean to the left) which say almost nothing, but confirm you in the bias that you were already headed towards. The ‘net is certainly full of such stuff, after all…

    Thank you for reading.

  8. @DUUDE, exactly. That is one of the main drives of global warming is the scramble for universities to get HUGE amounts of money. UC Irvine got millions upon millions for “studying” this bullshit. You are one of the only people I’ve heard that realizes this part of the story. Kudos.

  9. History repeating itself. It amazes me how how easy it is to brainwash people with pseudoscience. Many scientists who had believed the global warming threat initially, have since come to the realization that yes, it was and is a hoax engineered by environmentalists to clean up the environment. The problem is that many scientists live off government grants, and supporting this environmental scare helps them to put foold on the table. There isn’t any question that burning fossil fuels fowls up the environment but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and will not cause global warming anymore than automobile emissions created global warming back in that last hot period 1000-1300 A.D.

  10. @Thomas, cuz “2004” is more up to date?

    Right, cuz NatGeo is more believable than the UN or?

    Talk about brainwashed…

  11. This is a good example of how unsubstantiated dribble, peppered with out-of-context, selective figures, goes out as thinly disguised opinion to unscrutinizing readers on the internet.

    For a slightly more up-to-date and more comprehensive version of facts from National Geographic have a look at this link: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

  12. Hoax or not, it doesn’t change the fact that leaving your crap all over the place for some other generation to clean up is lazy, so why not do what you can now, that way at least your decendants won’t look back and say “what a bunch of lazy, good for nothing, filthy animals”, is that how you’d like to be remembered?

  13. Update: Scientist at center of ClimateGate scandal admits Medieval Warming Period was much hotter than current times and concludes that there has not been any “global warming” going on since 1995.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

  14. Refreshing to read an intelligent article. I’m old enough to recall that 50 years ago the “scientists” were predicting a new Ice Age to be imminently upon us. And now, the opposite. That only proves they are at best, guessing. The Sun, that big star just 8 minutes away, has much more influence on conditions here that a billion cows farting, or a million Bubbas in their Hummer. But yes, we should look at the latter two and address some of those issues anyway :)

    Reality is that Summers are hotter and Winters are colder than in recently recorded history. Where 30 years ago there was less extreme between seasons, this has steadily widened. This is also seen in extremes of drought (as the US has seen the past 10-15 years) and flooding in many places.

    Kyoto and such circuses are just political feel-good fronting. They are totally unrealistic in goals and methodology. In any case, with the world’s factories being moved to China, the pollution output is now “out of sight, out of mind”. In fact, LOCAL manufacture of goods would reduce pollution: (i) better controls (ii) lower transport cost to market. The higher cost of (i) would offset (ii), but the Walmarts don’t see it that way. The race to the bottom has to end, and countries should seriously look at the damage inflicted on their own manufacturing abilities in both a strategic and economic light. Even if goods become slightly more expensive, the quality increase and boost to local jobs would make it worthwhile.

  15. @aghos7

    I completely agree. Developing cleaner energy and helping beautifying the planet a bit will always be a plus, even if global warming is overblown. If it turns out to be nothing, it’s not like we got cheated out of anything.

  16. Global Warming may be a scare, but I view limiting the amount of waste we produce (any form) as a “win win” situation. Garbage dumps are UGLY, Coal power plants smell bad, car exhaust stinks too, motor oil/gas does not taste good (at least to me). Less waste = more raw materials –> lower likelihood of fight over raw materials. Besides, Its not about saving the planet, so much as it is about limiting the likelihood of possibly creating an environment which makes it more difficult for our species to survive.

  17. I’m back JJ :)
    I just located a few links regarding the Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.2
    Hopefully this information will create more confusion and chaos for the ordinary citizen, one would think that this would be put into a laymen terminology ( go figure ) there is even DVD’s available for ” FREE ” >> yiPPy <>>>> http://www.climatescience.gov/default.php

    I’m waiting for you JJ plZ l00k me up sw33ty! meow goez the kiTTy…………..

  18. I am certainly willing to consider the evidence either way. I admit I fell for the Y2K thing and “once bitten, twice shy”, so I am hesitant to buy into an issue based on media and emotion alone. I would be more interested in knowing what scientific data or studies you know of that support your point of view. There is factual science being done and reliable data to draw upon – it is the theorizing on cause and effect that is at issue.

    I believe there is strong scientific data showing that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at or near its highest levels in thousands of years – whether you believe it is from humans or cows or termites. Using ice cores and and other methods, my understanding is that science does have a good grasp as to how our planet and atmosphere has changed over its geological history and CO2 is extremely high right now.

    And it is true that in the last decade, it has been hotter than any other decade on record (of course, records only go back a hundred years or so … which may or may not mean anything).

    So, is CO2 the cause of a warming effect or is it coincidental? or marginal? And, although it is the hottest decade on record, it has been much hotter during many periods in the geological past (and colder) – does this current warming “event” really mean anything or is it just temporary and temperatures return to normal over the next decade. Or perhaps this period of warming is geological – even if every car and factory on earth ceased to exist, the ice caps might still disappear.

    I have heard that there is some scientific dissent around the actual cause, that there is a school of thought that believes the sun’s activity has far more to do with warming trends than human-generated CO2. However, I myself have not seen or read anything decisive or well-sourced, so I don’t know for sure.

    So there are some facts for the debate: do you have anything that you consider well done or authoritative on the subject? You argue against scientists and lament the scientific method, so on what do you base your hypotheses?

    And why do all politicians and media outlets now call it “climate change” when just a couple years ago it was all “global warming”? What’s up with that?

  19. lol the ice age sound like its coming. the US is being hit by a masive negative degrees. wheres the global warming now? cause im freezing my balls here in ohio. The “scientist” that tries to prove nothing likes the money that come from dumb ppl that believe in bed time storie.
    NO GLOBAL WARMING VISIBLE

  20. gr8 post JJ ……….
    I stand behind you 100%…………..nicely written & well executed. There is know doubt in my mind this is all a hoax somehow the Government & the media will always play tricks with words and fear. I dont believe for one bit this is all about global warming (nonsense) I’m yet to find in all the documentaries I’ve watched what is actually 100% proof positive in fact findings of Science. Many top scholars involved in this global warming nonsense are not even traceable when asked about results/proof of there findings. (yet to be seen on paper) proof of the global warming horrors. Government always has and always will have some kind of ulterior motive behind there tactics, U.S.A media is utter nonsense (kindly worded) actually it’s all about keeping funding flowing and people to have jobs so somebody has to make up some political jargon that the rest of the country is bound to get confused or misinformed about. The atmosphere is no different than 100 years ago till now we are doing just fine here on earth. Many people will debate you over this issue but I say bring / show me scientific proof that Global warming is a major problem, I’m from the show me state(Missouri) once again JJ k33p it flowing my cute lil writer and maybe one day we shall m33t and ya can write all over me :) something like a human billboard full of JJ’s writings and take photo’s for ALL the world too see. l00k me up I’m out there aka sasha.me

    kiSSes
    RebeKah

  21. @dude,

    Come back when you feel like talking like anything but a wannabe gangsta from Torrance. If you have facts, then list them, instead of dribbling rubbish out of your mouth.

  22. yo how would u explain the melting polar caps , rips in the ozone layers etc
    u seem to be an idiot wit just a voice , lots of facts out there to proof these problems. eventually everything ends … great example is ur life

  23. @varun,

    I would respect your comment more if you actually debated the points I’ve made. As it is now, you are another whiny hippie screaming “the sky is falling” with absolutely nothing to back up your claims.

    You think hurricanes and blackouts are the result of global warming? LOL wow. Good luck my friend.

  24. i think the global warming scare is sure to stay for a long time till the CO2 levels reduce significantly…this mite be ignored as a pretty same scare and it will go back into grave and blah blah! But the effect will be horrendous…you have already seen the hurricanes in the US and blackouts etc…i hope you dont want to see them again..Its not a hoax my friend…save power, go green, save the earth!

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.*



You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*