Category Archives: Global Warming

by

Poor Global Warming Apologists Just Can't Catch a Break :)

A recent report in Hindustan Times said,

The man blamed so far for the false alarm about the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 surfaced on Tuesday to say he never made such an exact assertion and, worse, he had been misquoted.

“On the basis of our research in 1999 I must have said that glaciers in the Central and Eastern Himalayas will lose mass during the next 40/50 years at their present rate of decline,” Hasnain told Hindustan Times.

And the hits just keep coming. I’ve seen Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, and I remember him mentioning that the Himalayan glaciers are going to melt down soon and cause a major shortage of water supply for all the surrounding areas. Isn’t it interesting that Al Gore went around the whole world giving his presentation and didn’t even bother to confirm what the theory of a melt down in the Himalayas was based on?

In fact, this isn’t the first time when some credible supporter of global warming has been caught with his pants down. If you see The Great Global Warming Swindle, you’ll see a lot of mess that’s happened with the IPCC’s report, which is the backbone of the green revolution. There were scientists whose names appeared on the report despite the fact that none of their statements did.

One scientist actually had to threaten the IPCC guys with legal action in order to have his name removed from the report, because they had mentioned his name among the contributors without actually including his views, thus falsely implying that he was in support of the report’s conclusions.

Another such example is Lawrence Solomon’s recent article in the National Post on “how Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.”

For the benefit of those who think that there is some truth to anthropogenic global warming, I’ll relay one fact: the biggest “evidence” of a relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature is the graph that spans 650,000 years highlighting the trend of carbon dioxide against global temperature. Both the factors do seem to have a correlation. However, the geniuses who use it to prove that carbon dioxide increases temperature seem to have forgotten how to read graphs. The correlation between these two factors is actually in reverse. Whenever the temperature increases, it causes an increase in carbon dioxide. In some cases, the increase in carbon dioxide following an increase in temperature is as pronounced as 800 years.

Therefore, even if you supported global warming out of some twisted logic like “even if things aren’t that bad, having a relatively CO2-free atmosphere is in our best interests,” you need to quit it.

Reducing CO2 will not cool the earth down. It might, however, bring in some complications that we aren’t yet aware of — such as a possible reduction in the growth rate of plants around the world (source).

And if you’re supporting the green revolution thinking that “we do need an alternative for fossil fuels anyway, and as long as we get that, it doesn’t matter what their intentions are”, try this for an argument: do the ends justify the means?

——————————————————————————

P.S.: Check this video out (ignore the first few seconds about Britain and the EU); perhaps that will give you some more food for thought about the intentions of all major bodies supporting global warming:

by

Global Warming — are People Really Informed?

There are a number of people today who seem to be on a crusade to protect our ice caps from a meltdown. They seem to have all the right numbers about how much stuff humans release in the atmosphere and how that contributes to the heating up of our globe.

One of my friends, who is a journalist, is one of those people. When her boyfriend told her that global warming is nothing more than a political scam, she freaked out and told him about how much research she had done on the subject and how she had all the facts.

The topic came up again a few days ago, and she said the same thing — she had the facts. I asked her, “have you read anything written by someone who does not support the theory that humans are heating up the earth?” She said, “no.”

I asked her, “do you know that the last time when the earth heated up the most, no industrialization existed and the earth was probably infinitely greener than it is today?” She said, “no.”

Then I asked her, “do you know how much carbon dioxide it would take to absorb enough radiation that can cause a meltdown, and what percentage of it is contributed by humans?” Again, the answer was, “no.”

I asked her, “sweety, what research did you do?”

Before I go further, I’d like to clarify that I will not mention any numbers in this post. A lot of people have done that before, and all you need to obtain all the figures yourself is a computer and a working Internet connection.

What I do wish to highlight here is how partial information can be used to support fallacious arguments.

The questions I asked my friend are the questions each person supporting the Green Revolution based primarily on Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth needs to ask himself.

Simply reading up on how much carbon dioxide we’re contributing and how many ice caps have already melted will only give you a large number that will scare you to death before you begin to analyze it in the right perspective. Sure, x million tonnes or whatever sounds like a crazy number, but is that what’s really causing all the trouble; or is it just a tiny fraction of the total amount whose major portion comes naturally from sources that aren’t man-made? Just this part will give you a crystal clear idea of how things are.

You might also want to analyze the solution being offered to overcome that problem, and whether that solution involves giving more power to the government. More often than not, you’ll see that the solutions involve significantly empowering the government in some sphere or our lives. In fact, history will show you that that’s the first clue of a scam in action — the smoking gun if you will.

Simply observe America’s near-bankrupt healthcare system and its history, and you’ll know how statistics can be used to manipulate people’s emotions and increase the government’s hold over a particular domain.

When you plan on supporting some cause after learning all the arguments in its favor, it is always a good idea to hear the other side of the story. You should see whether the dissenters have something factual and logical to offer, and if they do, then obviously some part of the stuff you read was either misleading or incorrect outright.

Whenever I explain to people why I think man-made global warming is just an elaborate illusion, they ask me to send them all the research I tell them about. Whether or not they agree with my conclusions is secondary; what I don’t understand is why they never thought of looking for dissenters’ opinions beforehand. Isn’t that what “research” is all about?