It is common knowledge among meteorologists that the Earth has natural cycles of warming and cooling, and that over the last 740,000 years there have been eight cycles, including four ice ages.
On Sunday, January 28, the front-page story in my daily newspaper was, “A chilling conclusion on global warming.” By Tuesday, the front page story was, “Climate Study: Millions will go hungry and dry.” Soon more revelations about a United Nations report on climate change, due in April, will be in the news, but let me tell you its conclusion. We’re doomed.
Now, you might ask yourself, why would anyone have any confidence in a report from an international institution that perpetrated the greatest fraud, “Oil-for-Food,” in modern history? Or that stacked its Human Rights Commission with representatives of the most repressive nations? Or that initiated a ban on DDT, thus leading to the needless deaths of millions from malaria? Or that is currently dawdling around while thousands continue to die in Darfur?
I mean, just how much credibility does the United Nations have these days? Or, for that matter, its International Panel on Climate Change that has issued various assessments of the climate since it was created in 1988 under the aegis of the U.N. Environmental Program.
Despite the Oscar statuette waiting for Al Gore’s dubious documentary, do you really want to take the word of Hollywood celebrities, politicians, and a U.N. panel that, according to the Sunday news story, involves a “group of 50 researchers, representing thousands more, (who) will then meet in secret to put the finishing touches on the report.”
“Meet in secret?” Excuse me, but isn’t real science about being able to actually prove one’s conclusions are accurate, as opposed to conjuring up a scarifying report that predicts that, by 2080, millions of people will go hungry and that there will be “critical water shortages in China and Australia, as well as parts of Europe and the United States . . .”
When he accepted the prestigious 2006 Craaford Prize, Wallace S. Broecker, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and universally deemed the world’s foremost climate interpreter, said, “My lifetime study of Earth’s climate system has humbled me. I’m convinced that we have greatly underestimated the complexity of this system. The importance of obscure phenomena, ranging from those that control the size of raindrops to those that control the amount of water pouring into the deep sea from the shelves of the Antarctic continent, makes reliable modeling very difficult, if not impossible.”
Despite the endless deluge of global warming claims there is also a mountain of climate data to dispute them. The primary reason for disputing the claims is that they are based on computer models. These are the same computer models meteorologists use to predict next week’s weather. How often are these predictions wrong? The answer is (a) daily, (b) weekly, (c) frequently or (d) all of the above.
Coming soon there will be another huge propaganda paroxysm about global warming.
Let me put your mind at ease. It is common knowledge among meteorologists that the Earth has natural cycles of warming and cooling, and that over the last 740,000 years there have been eight cycles, including four ice ages. Has the Earth been warming? Yes, since the end of the last Ice Age. Is it rapidly warming now? No.
If you want to believe a bunch of guys meeting in secret to write horrible scenarios of stuff that is not going to happen, be my guest.
What really scares me is proposed federal legislation based on the latest U.N. report. The damage it will do to our thriving economy is incalculable.
I can’t wait for the climate to swing back the other direction towards a cooling trend, as it always has. Unless this is one of those warming trends like the “medieval warming” which lasted for over 300 years it shouldn’t be much longer, hopefully in my lifetime. The cycles over the past 100 or so years have been about 25 years, where we swing from warming to cooling, and vice-versa. In one way I think a lot of people (such Al Gore) are going to look foolish but on the other hand it never stopped them before. When the trend switches to the other direction they’ll probably just cry “ice-age coming” like they were in the 70′s!
There has been a recent report by the scientists that the ice caps on Mars are melting. This proves that there are Martians. Otherwise, who could be driving all of those SUV’s on Mars?
As far as computer models are concerned, they are also used in making financial projections, such as the ones put together when selling a company. It can be no surprise that the projections drafted by the seller are usually very different from the one drafted by the buyer. The seller’s hot dog cart has had sales increases of 5% a year for the last three years. Therefore, the sellers computer projections show he’ll be selling 62.89% more hot dogs in ten years. Wow, what a business! Except that the cart won’t hold that many hot dogs and 7 years from now the cart will be worn out.
Please pardon the above non-scientific thoughts regarding global warming, but there are so many legitimate scientific facts which argue against panic and those facts are being ignored by the alarmists.
The useful idiots on the left are so self possessed, they think they can change the course of the universe. Those behind them know forcing the U.S. into ridiculous programs will succeed in pulling us down.
Mike Brown
In fact, in the late 70s, we were warned that global cooling was a real danger.
I am so tired of the media’s equation of “global warming” with “human induced global warning”.
The media has such a short attention spen, that they accept pronouncements of self-proclaimed experts such as Al Gore, and don’t bother to look at the data themselves.
I cringe when yet another talking head says that “Experts agree” (as ALL experts agree) about Global warming; for they scertainly do not. Al Gore is not the only one who ignores the opinions of people who don’t agree with them – the media do it all the time.
Does this sound familiar:
That environmentalism is in fact a pseudo-religion goes without saying. Like all such, it possesses every element of contemporary legitimate belief. It has a deity, in this case the goddess Gaia, the personification of the living Earth, (first envisioned by James Lovelock, whom we can slot in as high priest). It has its holy books, most changing with the seasons, and most, as is true of the Bible with many convinced Christians, utterly unread. It has its saints, its prophets, its commandments, religious rituals (be sure to recycle that bottle), a large gallery of sins, mortal and otherwise, and an even larger horde of devils. (Let me pause here to sharpen a horn.)
Another item that a pseudo-religion must have is an apocalypse – and that’s what global warming is all about.
In fact, the apocalyptic is the major fulcrum of environmentalism, the axis around which everything else turns. It’s environmentalism’s major element of concern, its chief attraction, and the center of discussion and speculation, in much the same way that some Protestant variants of Christianity are obsessed above all with sin. So crucial is the apocalypse to environmentalism that there has been a whole string of them, one after the other, covering every last aspect of the natural world. If one don’t git ya, the next one will.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/a_necessary_apocalypse.html
GLOBAL WARMING is the equivalent of the Bible; question the high priests of the environment and you’ll get treated like a heretic, first ignored, then attacked with an old Testament vengence.
Do some homework on “RADIATIVE FORCING” and you’ll find that ‘stuff’ in the Greenhouse layer is a two way mirror…reflecting back the earth’s heat at night and reflecting that increase in the Sun’s radiation during the day.
The net exchange is measured with the DIRURNAL Temperatures.
The science only matters in Europe where people heed it; in the U.S. there are only priests and heretics.
We migrated from Washington, D.C. to Maine in 1976 because I was fairly certain it would get warmer. So did a lot of other people.
So why has it taken all this time for people to make a big deal about it?
Who’s making money on ‘carbon trading’ and why isn’t CANADA buying into the KYOTO maddness? ….perhaps those Canukes aren’t as wacky as we tend to think they are?
It might behoove us to label extreme environmentalists for what they are, PRESERVATIONISTS. Contrary to their beliefs, I doubt most of us think it’s ok to drain the oil from our cars into the dirt when changing the oil. Most of us have a concern for the environment, but the PRESERVATIONISTS think we should all live in city, ride bicycles and not drive cars. If we follow their thinking (non-thinking?) there would be no growth in any respect for mankind.
This is much like it would behove us to identify another group of people, the HETEROPHOBES. These are the folks who, as exampled by the group in Washington state, have proposed Initiative I-957 providing that marriage be limited between men and women who would have to prove they were capable of bearing children before they could get a wedding license, and that the marriage be annulled if they didn’t bear a child within three years. (You won’t let us get married,we’ll get you!) Afterall, how do the feelings toward straight people held by HETEROPHOBES differ from what they claim are held by homophobes?
Mike Brown