September 3rd, 2007

The Year the Global Warming Hoax Died

 by Alan Caruba  
| View comments | Print This Post Print This Post

Prior to and during 2007, one research study after another revealed that the central premise of “global warming” lacks any scientific merit.

When did the global warming hoax die? Historians are likely to pinpoint 2007. It will take another decade to insure it cannot be revived, but the avalanche of scientific studies and the cumulative impact of scientists who have publicly joined those who debunked the lies on which it has been based will be noted as the tipping point.

It took some forty years to unmask the Piltdown Man hoax that began in 1912 alleging that the skull of an ancient ancestor of man had been found in England. Any number of British anthropologists unwittingly contributed to the hoax by confirming the authenticity of the skull until it was found that the jaw of an orangutan had been cunningly attached. The unmasking of “global warming” has taken less than half that time.

The hoax has mainly been a creation of the United Nations Environmental Program and took off in earnest with the 1992 Earth Summit. It culminated in 1997 with the Kyoto Climate Control Protocol, an agreement to reduce the generation of carbon dioxide, a “greenhouse” gas (CO2) said to be the cause of an accelerated warming of the earth. By 2005, 140 nations had ratified the pact, agreeing to reduce CO2 emissions. Notably exempt from the pact were nations such as China and India. Few, if any, nations have ever met the limits that require reductions in CO2 production, attributed to the use of so-called “fossil fuels” such as oil, natural gas, and coal.

The United States refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and, at one point, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution rejecting it. This has not kept the U.S. from spending billions on so-called “climate research” intended to address climate change with the aim of reducing or capturing CO2 emissions. Had that money been devoted to maintenance of the nation’s infrastructure, tragic events such as the collapse of the Minnesota bridge over the Mississippi might have been averted.

In August, it was revealed that NASA scientists had corrected an error that resulted in 1934 replacing 1998 as the warmest year on record in the U.S. Repeatedly the data put forth to justify the global warming hoax has been debunked.

As Dr. David Wojick recently noted, “The real significance is that such a small correction can make such a big difference. The reason is that the much touted warming of the last three decades is merely a return to earlier warm times, after an equally long period of cooling . . . There is no way this pattern constitutes a warming trend . . . In short, there is no evidence for human-induced global warming in the U.S. temperature record.”

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing a new study that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research, authored by a Brookhaven National Lab scientist, Stephen Schwartz. A former Harvard physicist, Dr. Lubos Motl, said the new study has reduced global warming fear-mongers to “playing the children’s game to scare each other.”

The new research concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as a series of reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has asserted for years. The IPCC reports have been increasingly dismissed as deliberate distortions of data that amount to little more than propaganda to advance the “global warming” hoax.

Having testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped. There has been little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 17 percent. Thus, the connection between CO2 and “global warming,” the key to the claims that it is occurring and will increase has been proven wrong.

Dr. Roy Spencer, another critic of the global warming hoax, has noted that, “At least 80 percent of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems.” The computer models used by advocates of global warming have been unable to include the actions and impact of clouds, thus rendering them seriously flawed.

Prior to and during 2007, one research study after another revealed that the central premise of “global warming” lacks any scientific merit. One by Dr. Tim Patterson concluded that, “The earth temperature does respond to the solar cycle as confirmed by numerous studies.” The solar cycle is known to be about eleven years in length and reflects increased or decreased sunspot (magnetic storms) activity. It is the Sun that largely determines the Earth’s temperature, which is never the same throughout the planet, given seasonal and solar changes.

In 2007, meteorologist Anthony Watts revealed that, “The U.S. National Climate Data Center is in the middle of a scandal. Their global observing network, the heart and soul of surface weather measurement, is a disaster.” It had been discovered that many of the measuring stations were placed in locations such as on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, and even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills!

Determining the Earth’s temperature, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Borh Institute, University of Copenhagen, collaborated with two other professors to write an article in Science Daily, saying, “It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of the Earth.” Indeed, “differences in temperature drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate.”

In May 2007, Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, dismissed fears of increased man-made CO2 in the atmosphere. He called the “global warming” argument “absurd.” As to any increase in the Earth’s temperature, he said, “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting carbon dioxide in the air.”

On August 15, 2007, meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, said, “If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our annual anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.”

There will be dying gasps to this hoax, not the least of which is a planned $100 million media blitz by Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, but the public is already far more concerned about instability in the Middle East, the forthcoming national elections, and shocks to the U.S. economy to accord such an effort much credibility.

Hoaxes have a life of their own and “global warming” is now coming to an end. Mark 2007 as the year it began to seriously bleed to death.

Environment, Animal Rights, Health Issues, & Drugs



Alan Caruba is the author of Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy. His weekly commentaries are posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center.
ACaruba@aol.com
http://www.anxietycenter.com/

Read more articles by Alan Caruba

Bookmark and Share

  1. A liberal friend an I have been debating man-made global warming for as long as Gore has been touting it. Not that I'm a skilled debater, but his last e-mail was a kind of admission of defeat. Here is what his closing comment was on the subject:

    "I really don't care if there is global warming or not, if this is the flag that must be waved to clean up our filthy environment, then I am for it."

    Now think about that. Among other things, how can we as a society come to any kind of agreement on anything when half the people don’t really care about the stated problem they claim to care so much about?

    Comment by sedonaman | September 3, 2007

  2. Environmentalism is more a religion than a science. So, the facts about the lack of evidence for anthropogenic global warming don't matter to true believers.

    Comment by gz9gjg | September 4, 2007

  3. I live in Tucson Arizona, we just had the coolest summer I remember. Last year was very hot, 45 days above 110 in a row. This year was great and the monsoon showed up on time.

    In all of the reports I have read it shows that the sun has more to do about how hot we are than any other data point. This makes a lot of sense since the sun is the main heat source for the solar system.

    Those who believe we are accidents of nature wish to make us gods of the universe. To say that we are responsible for warming and all other natural events fits their agenda.

    Comment by fbaginski | September 6, 2007

  4. It is a Hoax indeed,

    here are interesting facts I found at,

    NewsBusters.com, August 29 2007,

    … … …

    Less Than Half of Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

    Consensus? What consensus?

    A new survey about to be published by the journal Energy and Environment finds that less than 50 percent of the scientific papers written about climate change since 2004 have endorsed the view that man's activities are causing global warming.

    Think Katie, Charlie, and Brian will be discussing this tonight?

    As reported by DailyTech Wednesday (emphasis added throughout):

    Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as [history professor Naomi] Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

    Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

    Think someone will be interviewing Al Gore in the next couple of days to get his view on this? Or James Hansen? Or any of the global warming alarmists?

    But I digress:

    The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

    […]

    Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors."

    If we had an honest media, this would be a huge part of today's reports. Unfortunately, it is quite likely that only conservative blogs, Fox News, and the Drudge Report will view this survey as being in any way newsworthy.

    What a disgrace.

    (—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.)

    … … …

    I would like to add that,

    This also confirms that the main stream media is left leaning, if they weren't they would make this front page news.

    Comment by Friend of USA | September 8, 2007

  5. Friend of USA:

    "This also confirms that the main stream media is left leaning …"

    This is why I think they should be called the "LEFTstream Media" — there's nothing "main"stream about them.

    Comment by sedonaman | September 8, 2007

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.