#20 Global Warming – Just Another Liberal Apocalypse Scenario (yawn)
A Reference Library
Capsule: #20 Global Warming – Just Another Liberal Apocalypse Scenario (yawn) is about politicized science. Actually, it may be more accurate to describe it as religicized science. Then again, maybe it would be better to describe it as cultified science – sort of like Scientology meets Gaia worship. We’ll call it envirotheism.
So Who is the Modern-day Inquisition that Insists that
They have an Unchallengeable Consensus?
Focus: We’ve all seen a caricature of a long-haired, bearded, crazy guy on a street corner with a sandwich board saying ‘The end is here! Repent!’ Which ideology does this represent – conservatism or liberalism?
Details: #20 Global Warming – Just Another Liberal Apocalypse Scenario (yawn) is about the natural outcome of the cult of envirotheism – the worship of nature. Virtually every religion has an Armageddon story for the end of the world somewhere in the future, but cults are religions-in-a-hurry. They need Armageddon to be today. Liberalism has produced a long list of apocalypse scenarios (all failures), with the most predominant being global warming (its predominance means it is just a bigger failure than the others). Don’t believe me? I will prove to you without a doubt that the global median temperature of 1990 was the same as 2012 – using envirotheism’s very own temperature recordings. With this essay the apocalypse theory of anthropogenic global warming due to the greenhouse effect is over.
Excerpts: ~So, who is it today that really parallels the Inquisition who insisted that the consensus science of their day had conclusively established that the sun revolved around the earth, American neighbor? It was the inquisition geocentrists of the Roman Church that insisted that they had the consensus. It was the inquisition geocentrists who were the consensus establishment of their day – running the universities, the governments and the religious orders, etc. It was the inquisition geocentrists who demanded that their beliefs be taught without challenge. … But it was skeptics like Copernicus and Galileo who boldly stood up to the status quo of the Roman consensus establishment. The consensus science of that era promoted the agenda of the church, and geocentrism was considered unchallengeable. Today, it is inquisition liberals who are the consensus establishment. Today, it is inquisition envirotheists who refuse legitimate debate. Today, it is inquisition liberals who demand that skeptics, who are called deniers (today’s equivalent of heretics), should just shut up. Today, it is anthropogenic global warming theory that is considered unchallengeable. Today, it is inquisition envirotheists who want skeptics’ credentials stripped from them. Today, it is inquisition liberals that want skeptics arrested. … Today, it is inquisition envirotheists who propose putting democracy on hold to fight their phantom global warming. Today, it is inquisition liberals who will believe pretty much anything proclaimed by a so-called scientist that agrees with their liberal agenda, and will scoffingly dismiss all evidence that challenges their march toward utopia.~
Preface: The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is written for both contemporary American liberals and contemporary American conservatives – for the liberal (or progressive) as an exit counseling process with the purpose of removing the inherent paranoia that prevents them from seeing that in their core belief they are, in fact not a liberal, and for the conservative as a strategy for dealing with liberal acquaintances. (FYI, I am a Canadian – the implications of this are explained in the Introduction and #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments.)
[All citations are active number/letter codes. Code links beginning with an * indicate that the linked page has additional information for the topic at hand. Links without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. Citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information.]
Written in first-person narrative to liberals,
but also for conservatives.
• Mini critical thinking exercise
Are you one of those liberals that worships science, American neighbor? Maybe not so much since you have read the previous essay. And you won’t any longer after you have finished this essay.
So naturally our next question must be: Is anthropogenic global warming theory based on frauds? Remember, it is not about what is actually true that is important to etheists, but what you can be made to believe. In some instances the science and politics are definitely fraudulent. In others it may only be mere incompetence based on inconclusive evidence grasped at due to paranoia. But for the sake of simplicity I’ll just call them all sophistries. See for yourself, American neighbor.ab
• Dozens of global warming sophistries
[There are a lot of links in this essay, American neighbor. For most I’ll leave it up to you to decide which to investigate.]
SOPHISTRY #1: The biggest and most important fraud in anthropogenic global warming theory is the presumption that a conclusive result can be accurately determined. We have already found in the previous essay that nowhere near all of the possible influences on the global climate can be scientifically accounted for, so any absolute conclusion must include the fraud of exclusion – excluding any possibilities that do not or cannot support the presumed conclusion, but may contradict it. This is not honest and sound science.
SOPHISTRY #2, #3: We now know that the climate computer models that were the basis of the UN IPCC projections of increased and accelerating global warming were completely unreliable – actually useless. Listed in the previous essay are quotes from numerous scientists, including some with the IPCC and sympathetic to anthropogenic global warming, completely delegitimizing climate computer models. How can one not conclude that they are a fraud when honest and sound scientific methods were not followed to produce them, and their liabilities were simply ignored? It also turns out that the IPCC deliberately used fake data and claims to apply political pressure on world leaders. [ydqa255]
SOPHISTRY #4: The computer models project a warming of the atmosphere 8 to 12 kilometers above the tropics. Not just theoretical, but measurable. The problem is that extensive weather balloon measurements don’t find this warming. [33yrrz2, bholnz9] So, were the theories projecting this warming thrown out as failures? No. The measured temperature records were thrown out. Sheesh! Even a global warming scientist should be able to figure out that this is not honest and sound science.
300-word pages of text = 56
Reference citation links = 193
Recommended-reading links = 18
Profound insights = 20
Cover photo: Cover photo: US Navy photographTomahawk Block IV cruise missile
Cover background: SQUIDFINGERS [4rol8]
Copyright 2012 Jim Autio License Note: Although free, this essay remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For fair use only.
SOPHISTRIES #5, #6: So what were these computer models based on? They were mostly based on raw temperature data gathered from weather stations around the world for a period of over one century. Supposedly this data illustrates a huge upswing in global temperatures in the late twentieth century. Why ‘supposedly’ you ask, American neighbor? Well supposedly, because the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) which collected the data, once they had applied their mathematical fixes, destroyed the raw data. What was left was not the raw temperature data, but a doctored version of it, with no way to ascertain the accuracy or even the honesty of their manipulation. CRU says only a fraction of the data was destroyed, but their credibility in this matter has been severely damaged due to the CRU hack (more later) and does not jive with some of their emails about holding back the often requested raw data. Whatever the truth is, destroyed or hidden, neither is honest and sound science. [93f2y74]
SOPHISTRIES #7, #8, #9: The frauds began early, as you can see from this quote from Discovery magazine by now longtime IPCC author Stephen Schneider in 1989: ~ “…to get some broader based support, to capture the public’s imagination…that, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have…each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.”~ [9kq57fn] You would think that a scientist caught admitting and gloating over such a fraud and proposing more frauds would be expelled from the IPCC, but remember, we are talking about etheists here. No indiscretion is that egregious. In fact, we cannot be sure his statement was actually viewed as an indiscretion by his peers. At the Copenhagen conference Professor Schneider, still with the IPCC, showed his liberalism again, ordering security to restrain a journalist at a press conference posing legitimate inquiries about Climategate. [8vehq45] Oh, and one more thing about Professor Schneider, he was also a proponent of a coming ice age in the late seventies. [ykks85m] But the sophistries from this man are not done yet. In a Dec. 9, /09 Huffington Post article he wrote: ~ “The amazing scientific thing that nobody seems to be covering is that the “hockey stick” was never used as proof of anthropogenic global warming by IPCC.”~ This is clearly a sophistry as the hockey stick graph was prominently displayed in the 2001 IPCCTAR Summary for Policymakers. [27p9bqy] This man is obviously not about honest and sound science.
SOPHISTRY #10, #11: Speaking of IPCC authors, an ex-author explains how the process in formulating the various IPCC reports is fraudulent. Instead of the normal scientific process of multiple independent and anonymous reviews this was scrapped for cozy roundtable can’t-we-all-get-along sessions with reviewers obviously set up to manipulate and intimidate writers. Then, instead of waiting for the full reports to be finished, preliminary summaries were prematurely put out that were written by policy hacks to promote what was publicity desired and cover for any inconvenient discrepancies with the actual scientific report that wouldn’t be released for another few months. Definitely not honest and sound science. [ybrcsq9] In addition, the claim by the IPCC to be devoted to peer-reviewed science also turns out to be bogus. [ylfu4ok]
SOPHISTRY #12: 1995 was declared the hottest year on record. This was done by deliberately doctoring the December temperatures. The author of this fraud was etheist Geoff Jenkins who was then Prime Minister Blair’s go-to guy on global warming. This fraud originated with the official UK government arm of the Met (meteorological) Office Hadley Centre specifically set up to investigate global warming, and was released through the CRU. The fraud was later disclosed with the leak of an email addressed to the collaborating global warming scientists: ~ “Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc. etc.? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year….”~ Makes you wonder what frauds have been missed from 1996. Sure doesn’t sound like honest and sound science to me, American neighbor. [25krmbq, 27vajeu]
SOPHISTRIES #13, #14, #15, #16, #17: It turns out even the raw temperature data would be suspect. Subsequent research has since discovered that (currently) 69% of the American surface weather stations (the thermometers) that may have at one time been located away from artificial heat sources like buildings, air conditioning units, blacktop parking lots, etc., have had these things built within 10 meters of them, thus of course producing unnaturally elevated temperatures in later years, and some have been moved over the years without notice in the original data. Of course, this is likely the case for many international station sites as well. Using this data without first checking the integrity of the station sites is not sound and honest science. [36xak3, d3ofb9, 3xzbg3u] When rural thermometers were compared to urban thermometers, the rural ones showed no global warming since 1900, whereas the urban ones did, correlating with the urban heat island effect. [yfs3kdy] Then there is the Hardy Boys’ Case of the Dying Thermometers where 800 weather stations were just dropped from the U.S. section of the GHCN Global data set in 2008 apparently without explanation. [2wdx6k8] This same sort of fraud has been discovered with Canadian weather stations as well. [94uktlo] In a similar fraud it seems the temperature data produced by the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City has been doctored to produce scarier results by averaging adjacent data points. [3686b96] In fact it has been found that:
~Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to produce cooler results.~ [y8ghyrr]
SOPHISTRIES #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23: It is not just the claim of increasing global temperatures that is unreliable. It turns out that the claim of supposedly increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is questionable as well. There are accurate measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide dating back to 1812. They illustrate that levels vary greatly, but nevertheless, averages have not changed over the last two hundred years. But these measurements have been cherry picked by the global warming adherents and then massaged with ice core measurements. [987omy2] It is also questionable as to whether there is any direct relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide content and global temperatures. Research has discovered periods in history where carbon dioxide levels were multiples of today’s value during ice age temperatures, and a new study of the last thirty years of satellite carbon dioxide measurements has found no correlation between rising temperatures and rising carbon dioxide levels. In fact, the last 22 years are irrefutable evidence, because the net temperature has not risen, whereas the IPCC insists that atmospheric carbon dioxides levels have. [3xet8fc]
So where has the extra carbon dioxide gone? Contrary to assertions that the oceans are giving up their carbon dioxide content to the atmosphere, two new studies have illustrated that the ocean absorption rate has been constant since 1850. [356gehk] (Another study of the last 150 years has also shown no increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. [ycjgl5x]) Using ice core analysis it has been discovered that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels actually follow temperature, not the other way around as claimed by the global warming crowd. [mv33ou] There are only five permanent monitoring stations around the world and all have been compromised with active volcanoes, industry or rain forests in their proximity that could dramatically alter their readings depending on wind direction. The monitoring network’s active chart used to demonstrate the supposed increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just below it flatly states that, “GLOBALVIEW-CO2 [the active chart] is derived from measurements but contains no actual data [their bolding]. To facilitate use with carbon cycle modeling studies, the measurements have been processed (smoothed, interpolated, and extrapolated) resulting in extended records that are evenly incremented in time. Be aware that information contained in the actual data may be lost in this process.” [2eulupn] Again, given the track record of global warming scientists, it would be pertinent to question whether this amounts to honest and sound science.
SOPHISTRIES #24, #25, #26: Then there are the infamous IPCC “hockey stick graphs” that showed a steady decline of northern hemisphere temperatures for close to one thousand years and then a spike up in the twentieth century. These too, along with the climate computer models were a highlight of the IPCC in promoting anthropogenic global warming theory. Their accuracy has been doubted for years for questionable statistical manipulation (and have been proven faulty more than once), but recently even more damning evidence has surfaced that the tree ring data used for one graph was cherry picked to achieve desired results. Additionally, the CRU hacked files reveal that data from dissimilar sources were mixed to eliminate a rather inconvenient dramatic drop in proxy temperatures in the middle of the twentieth century. The hockey stick graphs were certainly unreliable enough at first that to use them as a propaganda item to scare the general public would definitely classify their use as a political fraud. But these new revelations make them a scientific fraud as well, and definitely repeat offenders against honest and sound science. [yl2qgq6, y9p4xn4, ybxaqnp, yeeyrhm, 9klxgw7, 37vqpe7]
Update: Looks like the chickens have come home to roost for the author of the infamous hockey stick graphs, Michael Mann: [*ljfm37l]
SOPHISTRY #27: One of the primary proxy sources for the hockey stick graphs were tree cores. Turns out their conclusions omitted a crucial element that contradicted their desired result. The wobble in the tilt of the earth’s axis was completely ignored. [ye594fa]
SOPHISTRIES #28, #29, #30: It turns out that not just the northern hemisphere data has been manipulated to produce scary global warming graphs. Australian, South American and New Zealand data have also been discovered to have been massaged to produce desired results. This is especially important for the CRU hockey stick graphs, because these frauds were performed prior to CRU receiving the data. This means that even the supposedly raw data that they manipulated into their hockey stick graphs may have been tampered with before they even got it. Certainly not honest and sound science. [2blp4lt, 2b5g2lo, 2dszpqy, yb4qvpw]
SOPHISTRY #31: Since the revelation of the southern hemisphere frauds it has been revealed by the Russians that their weather station reports were cherry picked by the CRU to produce a pronounced warming. More dishonest and unsound science from the CRU. [yf9vc2c, y8jhu28]
SOPHISTRIES #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39: The global warming scare began in the 1980s (shortly after the global cooling scare petered out) with a report based on the above mentioned data from weather stations around the world (again – many were compromised). This is part of the files now made infamous by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit that was recently hacked and revealed to be a den of anti-science etheists behind the so-called research. If you aren’t sure how important the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is to the global warming movement try an internet search with >cru leading climate<. You’ll see it described as “world-leading research”, “leading Climate Research Unit”, “leading authority on human-caused climate change”, “leading climate scientists”, “world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures”, etc. Added to those should be “world’s leading climate science frauds”. The hacked emails illustrate that data and emails may have been deleted to prevent discovery of poor scientific practices, fixing of data, denial of access to others to confirm the CRU’s findings, interference in the peer review process, a desire to keep skeptics from presenting research to the IPCC, and deceitful funding practices. It seems nothing the CRU did can be seen as honest and sound science. [ye95k92, yhx9juw, ycne65v, y8rnqaj, 2fbsucf, ydar4fc] It may not have been a hack, but just more of the same ongoing carelessness. [yetro82] 
SOPHISTRY #40: The hacked emails indicate that this attitude of acceptable fraud went way beyond just the CRU. Hundreds and maybe thousands of other officials and etheist scientists were aware of many of the most damning emails and none chose to blow the whistle publicly (except maybe the hacker, which would then make him/her a whistleblower). All chose to keep their mouths shut and the gravy train flowing. This points to a “tribalism” that justifies fraud and brings doubt to the practice of all science. Definitely not honest and sound science. [yflgcz9]
SOPHISTRY #41: And if you think the implications of the CRU are old news, American neighbor, know that 12 of the 26 scientists that wrote the most recent IPCC report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, are directly implicated in the CRU scandal. [22ov37c]
SOPHISTRIES #42, #43, #44, #45: Another one of the mantras of the anthropogenic global warming movement has been the NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies’ (GISS) claim that 1998 was hottest year on record. Turns out their methodology also left something to be desired and the corrected calculations from skeptics conclusively showed that 1934 was actually the hottest year on record with 1998 second, 1921 third, and three other years in the 1930’s making the top ten. (By the way, the reason 1998 was so hot was because of a very influential El Niño event, not global warming.) Alarmists have now changed their claim to the last decade being the warmest in recorded history. While this may be true it means absolutely nothing. Recorded history only goes back a couple of hundred years. As determined by proxy temperatures the globe was much warmer a thousand years ago during the Medieval Warm Period, and as previously noted the projected ever-increasing and accelerating global warming has stopped. It was supposed to be a hell of a lot warmer than it has been according to all of the IPCC’s failed computer models. And it does not explain how the 1930s could be the second hottest decade in recorded history, especially since as noted in SOPHISTRY #13, the weather stations were not compromised as they have been recently. (Also, now it has been discovered that the 1930s were actually the warmest decade since records have been kept. [y8ghyrr]) And it also doesn’t explain how there can be a warming trend when eight of the top fifteen hottest years happened before the supposed influence of manmade global warming gases. [34fs9b, 3733yam] With 1934 being the hottest year on record this also negates similar claims made over the years for 1987, 1988, 1990, 1995, 1996 and 1997 (found using the Google Archive Search engine with *”warmest year on record”*). The above mentioned claim of the “warmest decade” is not the first time that has happened. From a Washington Post story dated May,21 1995: ~The 10 warmest years since 1860, when weather records were first kept, have all occurred since 1980, the report said.~ [2womyjy] Again, no honest and sound science found here.
SOPHISTRY #46, #47, #48: Of course, once it became evident that global warming had stopped by 1990, the orthodox media doctors and global warming etheists shrewdly changed the name of their fraud to climate change, another fraud in and of itself. Then to cover their tracks they began claiming that they never asserted that global temperatures would continue to climb. But haven’t they always claimed that the global temperature follows the atmospheric carbon dioxide level due to the greenhouse effect, and that that level is climbing at an accelerating rate? Why, yes they have. Well, they are still claiming that the atmospheric carbon dioxide rate is climbing and accelerating, so the fact that the global temperature is not following illustrates that their claim is nothing but a fraud. The orthodox media is complicit in these frauds, first refusing to even cover the CRU emails story and then attempting to cover it up. [9ohspld]
SOPHISTRY #49: Our next example is another panoply of frauds in the form of a true propaganda film that Adolf Hitler would applaud. Archbishop of etheism, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was put to the test when the UK government was challenged in court about showing it to school children. Experts of all kinds gave testimony as to the credibility of the assertions in the film. The final verdict was that it was a fraud virtually from beginning to end. In fact, eleven gross inaccuracies were identified. Simply put, it is fiction portrayed as science. No wonder Al Gore has never accepted an invitation to debate global warming. Honest and sound science? Don’t make me laugh, American neighbor. [yqd7nb, 2fhreqw, 2y5uay]
SOPHISTRIES #50, #51: In late 2008 it was claimed by GISS that October, 2008 was the hottest October on record, but who can forget the incredible news stories of unseasonable snowfalls, ice storms (remember the photos of China coated in ice?) and record low temperatures around the world from that unseasonal fall? Again, it turned out to be a fudging of the numbers where some of September’s recordings were simply shifted into the October numbers to make it appear much warmer. Once the fraud was discovered GISS attempted to cover its tracks by claiming they had found a new “hotspot” in the Arctic when satellite photos were showing huge sea ice gains at the same time. Neither was the original claim honest and sound science, nor was the attempted ‘yeah, but’. [68ufnt]
SOPHISTRY #52: Using GISS data you can also make your own fraudulent temperature maps. If they don’t have data for a specific area of the globe they’ll conveniently just make it up for you. [ykwb8ty]
SOPHISTRY #53: One of the multitude of assumptions in anthropogenic global warming theory is that there is a magnifying effect with the production of high heat-trapping cirrus cloud formation, but this also turns out to not be true. In fact the opposite turns out to be the result. [8suhjy2]
SOPHISTRY #54: Another assumption is that the oceans will become more acidic because of global warming. This is just another example of where theory doesn’t match up with reality. [3snmf4]
SOPHISTRY #55: An additional ocean related scare tactic is the claim that global warming will destroy the planet’s great reef systems, but it turns out that coral reefs are much more adaptable than first thought, capable of dealing with much higher temperature and carbon dioxide levels than are predicted by global warming etheists. [2v2hgmm]
SOPHISTRY #56: Another anthropogenic global warming scare tactic states that as the temperature has increased there have been more climate and weather related deaths worldwide. Turns out this too is only propaganda. Climate and weather related deaths have consistently decreased from the 1920s to the present. Scare tactics for the sake of scare tactics is not honest and sound science. [8snovf8, nvkysl, 33xqvu8, 2aepmt4]
SOPHISTRY #57: Next we have the scare tactic that the global ocean level is rising due to global warming. The 2003 IPCC report claiming a 2.3mm per year rise in the oceans has since been completely debunked. [4tphbr, 8wr3y7r, d4zayx] They got the number by using a single tide gauge near Hong Kong, an area know to be subsiding (slowly sinking). They then confirmed it by applying a “correction factor” to satellite data to show the same 2.3mm rise. Essentially they invented data to get the result they desired. So this claim of rising sea levels is from computer modeling, not legitimate measurements which do not show a rising trend, but actually measure no change since the 1970s when the ocean levels actually fell. An IPCC sympathetic research team were actually witnessed destroying evidence that contradicted sea level rise in the MaldiveIslands. None of this is honest and sound science. Update: It turns out that there is a 60 year fluctuation in ocean level movements that has nothing to do with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. [bhsr6kq]
SOPHISTRY #58: Of course we have been told over and over that the ocean level rise is significantly due to the Greenland icecap melting at unprecedented levels. This idea that Greenland is going through unprecedented warming is obviously proven wrong from historic records pertaining to its name and the fact that the Vikings grew crops there during the Medieval Warming Period. But it turns out that temperatures in Greenland were much warmer and increased at a much faster rate prior to 1930 than today, and then cooled until approximately 1990. Nope, no hockey stick graph here either. [ydouexo, 2wodwn7]
SOPHISTRY #59: There is a scare claim based on supposed rising oceans that Bangladesh will be swamped under by the end of the century, but Bangladesh’s own scientists devoted to the problem insist that past data shows the land mass expanding and they project even more expansion even if the sea level rises as projected by the IPCC. Ignoring local science specialists to put out scary scenarios is not honest and sound science. [n38u23]
SOPHISTRY #60, #61, #62, #63, #64: The desertification of forest lands being a supposed result of global warming is another scare that has been put forth, but the Sahara desert is currently in a greening cycle in Egypt, Morocco, Chad and Sudan. It is postulated that warmer air holds more moisture and is causing the greening, but you can’t have it both ways, insisting that global warming is expanding deserts to scare the public, and then dismissing shrinking deserts as also a result of global warming. [nt85z2, 2bgg2ca] Related to this fraud is another one from the IPCC which claims that crop yields in Africa could be halved by 2020. It turns out that there was no science behind this claim at all. [24sbtn4] The IPCC claim about 40% of the Amazon rainforest being jeopardy was also made with no scientific basis either. [yc3c8xt, 2c8lrg6] In fact, it turns out that many claims by the IPCC were based on virtually no science. [ydp4rk7, y96cld3] Then there is the claim of increased mudslide events. That’s also bogus. [3xl99gb]
SOPHISTRY #65: Something that has always amused me, American neighbor, is the global warming scare tactic that a warmer climate with a higher atmospheric carbon dioxide content will produce less net crop production. This goes against any sort of rational thought. Where I live in northern Canada the growing season is from mid May to mid September. Warm the climate and add another month and the growing season would be an additional 25% longer! Granted, crop selection might have to be adjusted, but the net result would be more production, not less. It is also a fact that warmer air can hold more moisture, so this idea that there would not be enough precipitation would in general be wrong. Then there is the fact that greenhouse growers add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in their greenhouses to promote faster and fuller growth. It is well documented that Greenland and Europe were much more productive in agriculture during the Medieval Warming Period than either before or after, with a corresponding population explosion. [34sprb3]
SOPHISTRY #66: Of course, there is also the infamous snowcap glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro that has receded over the past century, but it has since been discovered that it is likely in part because of deforestation around the mountain that has affected the local weather patterns, not global warming. The rainforest provided humidity and kept the air mass cool, but since it has been cut down there is no longer a humidity sink to cool the surrounding temperatures and provide continuous moisture for the glacier (sort of like putting a piece of bread in the brown sugar jar to keep it from lumping). [36hnh7s] Naturally it melted, with no help needed from so-called global warming. In addition it has also been discovered that the snowcap may have been as a result of anomalous weather to begin with, and that the current melting is a return to relative normalcy. [y87wo3h] Of course, you may be objecting that this is not a fraud, but remember what sound science is – eliminating alternate explanations. The global warming crowd obviously did not do that before jumping to their conclusion, so yes this is another fraud, and not honest and sound science.
SOPHISTRIES #67, #68: Then there is the arctic is melting meme. Greenpeace went so far as to claim that the arctic would be ice free by 2030. The orthodox media filter then ran with the story to induce fear. Later the leader of Greenpeace admitted that the claim was a fraud. [9kw49m9, m2k49s] And the idea that Arctic melting is somehow new is erroneous as well. The Washington Post reported in 1922 the occurrence of vanishing ice and the fact that “well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.” [ybqztbq] On top of all this is a new study illustrating that the Arctic has been much hotter many times before. [yalwqmq] It also turns out that the great Arctic melting of 2007 was actually from ice being moved south by winds and water currents, not global warming. [35sbdct]
SOPHISTRY #69: Related to the Arctic melting scare is the Antarctic melting scare. It turns out that this is another example of manipulated data. [brau73, 3ylyuol] Another example lacking honest and sound science.
SOPHISTRY #70, #71, #72: One more scare tactic is the assertion that because of global warming hurricanes would become more numerous and dangerous. Has that happened? No. [75qoc6, 2b4fl97] And was there any valid science behind this prediction? No. [ygkcmf8] But this didn’t stop the Stern Review from depending on the IPCC for claims of a connection between global warming and increased damages from weather related events like hurricanes. [983f3zh] Again, there was no science behind these projections. [4rj2c5j]
SOPHISTRY #73, #74, #75: Our next scare tactic is that glaciers around the world are melting at an accelerated rate due to anthropogenic global warming. Wrong again. It has been determined that Swiss glaciers melted at a faster rate during the 1940s than they do today. [ylh78u6] Now we find out that the scare claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 was also a fraud. [c37heyj] And IPCC claims that ice caps in the Andes, Alps and Africa were melting because of global warming have now been revealed to have been from anecdotes with no actual science behind them. [y8ku7pm]
SOPHISTRY #76: Of course every good environmental scam needs a fuzzy-wuzzy mascot that’s supposedly threatened with extinction. For the global warming crowd it is the Polar Bear. Of course, the Polar bear has never been endangered and isn’t now. [p5qsjg, 3xrnrot, 36l8zzr]
SOPHISTRY #78: Now it is GISS’s turn to be coy with data. For over three years GISS has been stonewalling a legitimate Freedom of Information request for the data and procedures explaining the “corrections” that have become necessary in GISS’s publicly released climate figures. This is in relation to the above mentioned hottest years on record fraud. Who knows what sort of skeletons GISS is attempting to hide? I bet it won’t be pretty, or in line with honest and sound science. [yc9k4jr, yc5pwk3]
SOPHISTRY #79: Wikipedia is a user sourced and edited internet encyclopedia. It has long been known by conservatives to have an extremely liberal bias, so it is no surprise to find out from inside the administration that it has been deliberately manipulated to propagandize anthropogenic global warming theory and has been filtered to keep out skeptic viewpoints. [ydpab2k, c5t7hmd]
SOPHISTRY #80: Here we have a ‘follow the money’ fraud of none other the chairman of the UN IPCC, Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri. It seems this astute etheist businessman is not so pious as to be above he and his industrial friends making a little money in the carbon trading markets. The same markets that Pachauri’s IPCC policy recommendations apply to. [cogtczq]
SOPHISTRY #81: Next we have a “find the money” fraud. Not surprisingly, after the corruption of the UN Oil for Food Program with Iraq where billions of dollars vanished, it is now revealed that Europe’s cap and trade market is suffering from the same fate. [38d3n6d, y9cq76d] Isn’t this the same cap and trade market Mr. Pachauri and his friends play in? Why, as a matter of fact it is. How much carbon emission do you think has been saved, American neighbor? Yeah, I would be surprised if any has been saved either.
SOPHISTRY #82: This fraud is hilarious in that it is about the only thing that James Hanson, the etheist godfather of global warming has ever gotten right. He objects to cap and trade markets as solutions to global warming. [8kwprcd, 2wkkjbt] Cap and trade is actually a legacy of one of the largest frauds in business history. It was an idea devised by – [pause for effect] – Enron! Europe has led the way with an emissions trading scheme since 2000. Its legacy is high taxes, lost jobs, corruption (see previous SOPHISTRY) and no reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Sounds like the perfect command market solution for the biggest scientific fraud in history. [2ue25yf, 395ernk] Andrew Bolt from the Herald Sun in Australia succinctly summed up the Copenhagen summit: ~ “Nothing is real in Copenhagen – not the temperature record, not the predictions, not the agenda, not the ‘solution’.”~
SOPHISTRY #83: Here is a recent sophistry proven wrong – 50 million phantom climate refugees that have evaporated into the global warming atmosphere. [3hp8lpf]
SOPHISTRY #84: Attempting to excuse the lack of net warming since 1990, etheists have postulated that the increase in coal burning in China has released sulfates canceling the supposed warming affect of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Except regional temperature measurement changes are not consistent with the area of the globe most affected by the sulfates. Where the sulfates should have made the globe cooler, the temperature has warmed slightly. And where the sulfates should not have reduced warming, the temperatures have decreased the most. [42as6ed]
SOPHISTRY #85: Here we go with hiding the decline again (more like a leveling, but still hiding). Physics professor Richard Muller of U of C, Berkeley caused a minor stir by prematurely releasing a study of land-based temperature recordings over the past two centuries that he claimed proved that there has been continuous warming since the 1950s. Of course, it didn’t last more than a day or two before fellow scientists in the study and external ones turned this episode into sophistry number 85. [3cba7b9, 6yo4sr5, buvyoqe]
SOPHISTRY #86: Now we have Climategate II. 5,000 more emails from the top of the global warming pyramid with the same sort of nefarious content as with the original Climategate emails. This time there are admissions in the etheist emails that even they don’t trust their own colleagues’ study results. At this point I am too tired and bored with global warming frauds to spend a lot of time on this. Here is an introductory link and a collection of links. [colyl3e, d7da4a7] Both are from only a few days in. If you want more just Google >climategate 2< or >climategate ii<. Have fun…
SOPHISTRY #87: Now there is Fakegate, where a global warming etheist scientist stole private documents from skeptic organization and then added fake incriminating documents before releasing them to the public. You have got to read about this one, American neighbor. If written as a fiction story no reader would accept the ironies as reasonable – they are just too over-the-top! [*82dgpyr]
SOPHISTRY #88: The latest scam is that extreme weather is the “new normal”. Nope: [byywa7d]
SOPHISTRY #90: Now we’re supposed to believe that all of the global warming in the past 15 years has been hiding in the deep oceans. LOL! Everything envirotheists have tried has failed, so to desperately grasp at something – anything – to explain why there has been no recent global warming, they now tell us that global warming is accelerating in the oceans below 700 meters. This new analysis is nothing more than old data that had not previously shown anything out of the ordinary, with what are known as “corrections” applied to it. Shazam! Hidden global warming! Myself, I don’t believe that it is even possible to map the temperatures of deep oceans around the world. The amount of sensors needed would astronomical. And how could currents that are very poorly understood be accounted for? And it turns out that the temperature variations they are supposedly measuring are in the thousandths of a degree! [q6fa6vq] This finding isn’t science, but a grasping at straw. Are they now admitting that all of this so-called surface evidence of supposed extreme weather, supposed sea level rise, and supposed melting ice caps is all fiction because there has been no recent surface global warming since all of the supposed heat has gone deep into the oceans? Because if this supposed deep ocean warming is correct, then all of those other claims about the effects of global surface warming MUST be wrong. Basically they are not only calling skeptics wrong, but every other envirotheist who bases their claims on surface warming (this is just too good! LOL again!) Another question: How exactly did this heat slip by without any detection by the surface thermometers on land, the surface and shallow thermometers in the oceans, weather balloon recordings, and satellite measurements? (Damn sneaky heat!) Once this has been proven to be bogus (and no doubt it will be) will they then claim that all of the heat from global warming has been transferred into the earth’s core?!? Is the earth in danger of exploding and turning into a small sun? Who can take these so-called scientists seriously? [/incredulous, laughing amusement] Update: A new study published in Nature has found that a “La-Niña-decadal cooling” accounts for at least some of the lack of recent warming. [ob9z9hg] This contradicts ‘the-deep-ocean-ate-my-global-warming’ theory since La-Niña is when cold deep ocean water surfaces. Oops… Another update: Here is ample evidence and further links illustrating the absurdity of “the oceans ate my global warming” excuse: [kxh7mu4]
Thank goodness someone else has created a list of “climate-gates” so I don’t have to keep adding to my equivalent list of sophistries: [33vvjvb]ac
• After 22 years – same clinic? – same consulting firm? – same broker?
What if you had a persistently sore stomach and you went to a medical clinic that advertised that it had 25 diagnostic models that could determine if you had cancer, and all 25 concluded that you did. Then after 22 years of painful, debilitating and expensive treatment you found out that all 25 models were a fraud and you never did have cancer – it was only an ulcer. Would you continue to put your faith in that clinic? What if you owned a midsized company and hired a consulting firm to diagram out a business plan to expand your company into a large cap company in short order, but after 22 years of following their 25 plan models you ended up back as a one man operation working out your garage. Would you still be willing to follow that consultant’s advise? What if you gave a broker $100,000 to invest for you? What if after 22 years their 25 stocks and funds they invested your money in were now still worth $100,000? Would you still trust that broker with your future investments? So, American neighbor, after listening to global warming etheists project an ever warming climate with their (
25) 65 climate models, why do you still have faith in those etheists and their computer models when they have all been wrong for the last 22 years?!?ad
• The impossible happens
But they have been more than just wrong, American neighbor. It is not just that the temperature has trended in the wrong direction (sideways) since 1990. It is that they projected that it would be impossible to trend in the wrong direction. [3vpoz2f] They claimed that ever increasing carbon dioxide levels must produce ever increasing trend in temperatures. In fact, they claim that based on what is called global warming commitment, even if greenhouse gas emissions stopped increasing, the global temperature would still rise (note the date):
~In a paper published in the April 15, 2001 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, NOAA/GFDL scientists Richard Wetherald, Ronald Stouffer and Keith Dixon report that the warming would continue well into the future even if atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) remain at current levels.~ [6oeohcb]
So it is not just that global temperatures have not cooperated with their (
25) 65 climate models. They claimed it would be impossible for what has happened in the last 22 years to happen. They were not just wrong – they were so wrong that what they said would be impossible actually took place!ae
• Not accelerating temperature – decelerating temperature
But it is even worse than the fact that they erroneously projected continuous warming. They also projected that the warming would continue to accelerate. To illustrate the propaganda behind the anthropogenic global warming movement I conducted a little experiment that you can too, American neighbor. I went to Google’s Advanced Search, and then the Google News Archive Search. I then placed >”climate change” accelerat< in the search form and clicked Show Timeline (I used the truncated >accelerat< to make sure I would get all of variations including accelerate, accelerating, accelerated, etc. in the search results). Then I selected the 1980 time block, then the 1998-99 time block, then the January, 1999 time block, then at the bottom of the page the maximum Results Per Page. I did this for every month in 1999 and found 19 articles that in one way or another claimed that global warming was currently accelerating. The year 2000 produced more results. In fact, every subsequent year produced more results. And if you were to substitute >”global warming” accelerat< more can be found. Literally, since 1990 there have been hundreds of articles on the internet and in the orthodox media insisting that global warming has been accelerating despite that the net global median temperature in 2012 has not increased since 1990. But the scare scenarios are even worse than this. First there is commitment where global warming is supposedly inevitable even if all emissions are stopped. Then there is accelerating global warming where the temperature increase itself supposedly continually increases in its rate. Then we get to runaway global warming where some supposedly super-scary tipping point is supposedly reached and the global temperature rockets up out of control and we end up like Venus. I kid you not, American neighbor. [2afbp4a] It is envirotheism paranoia on a grand scale. A Google search for >”runaway global warming”< has over half a million results, while >”runaway climate change”< returns another one million results!af
• Consensus organizations lied about ‘accelerating’ global temperature
Here are some outrageously deceptive examples of statements claiming continuing and/or accelerating global warming from well known scientific organizations (I found all of these in 2012):
~The greenhouse effect is a natural warming process. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and certain other gases are always present in the atmosphere These gases create a warming effect that has some similarity to the warming inside a greenhouse, hence the name “greenhouse effect.” Increasing the amount of greenhouse gases intensifies the greenhouse effect. Higher concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap more infrared energy in the atmosphere than occurs naturally. The additional heat further warms the atmosphere and Earth’s surface.~ – Marian Koshland Science Museum of the National Academy of Sciences, current page as of January, 2012 [cx6vmp9]
My mother had a greenhouse, American neighbor. I can tell you that when the sun came up in the morning on a clear day the temperature inside would get hotter and hotter until it reached its maximum. It never stopped getting hotter at 9:00 AM and then resumed getting hotter at 10:00. Another thing about greenhouses is that it is the enclosing effect of the plastic or glass that traps the heat. Adding more layers or making the one layer thicker does not increase the greenhouse effect. The above quoted statement says: “Increasing the amount of greenhouse gases intensifies the greenhouse effect.” This is like saying adding more layers of glass to the greenhouse will increase the greenhouse effect within the greenhouse – nonsense! Once the level of containment is reached, adding more layers or thickening the one layer will have virtually no effect. (Here again is the explanation if you missed this link in the last essay: [*7rt25rb]) In fact, it is highly likely that infrared light has little to do with the greenhouse effect, either in greenhouses or the atmosphere. In 1909 professor of experimental physics, Robert W. Wood illustrated that greenhouses heat up due to conduction and convection, not IR forcing. [*np8o7n6 page 6]
However, even if it is IR forcing, how could it stop for 22 years if it is the predominant influence on the climate as etheists insist that it is? Unless it isn’t. Either way the jig is up. For the last 22 years mankind has been pumping out more carbon dioxide than ever before (the equivalent of adding more layers to my mother’s greenhouse). Obviously, since there has been no warming the conclusion MUST be that there is NO additional predominant greenhouse effect, NO commitment, NO acceleration, and NO runaway global warming.
~The current levels of long-lived atmospheric greenhouse gases and the levels of increased CO2 and heat absorbed by the world’s oceans ensure that the climate will almost certainly continue to increase for decades, even if greenhouse gas and absorbing particle emissions are scaled back to more sustainable levels~ – American Chemical Society, current page as of January, 2012 [72ug6ut]
What “continue”? For something to continue it must first be doing what it must continue to do, and there has been NO global warming for over a decade, therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for the temperature to “continue to increase for decades”.
~The American Geophysical Union (AGU) notes that human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is significantly contributing to the warming of the global climate.~ American Astronomical Society Endorsement of AGU Statement on Climate Change, June, 2004 [829m8o3]
The “increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases” had NOT been “contributing to the warming of the global climate” for at least 14 years as we know now. Where is the correction?
~The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has reaffirmed the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society. […] The AAAS Board noted that “the pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.”~ – American Association for the Advancement of Science, December 4, 2009 [yhqc2y7]
The AAAS is the largest scientific organization in the United States. How can global warming be a “growing threat to society” when it has NOT been “growing”? They even claim that the “pace of change … has increased” (accelerated). However, after 22 years there has been no net global warming – just fluctuation.
~Human responsibility for most of the well-documented increase in global average temperatures over the last half century is well established.~ – American Geophysical Union, July 20, 2009 [6mbpk5v]
It is actually “well-documented” (above) that the previous 19 years was not global warming, but fluctuation, illustrating that there is NO “human responsibility”.
~Global mean temperatures have been rising steadily over the last 40 years~ American Meteorological Society, February, 2008 [nlokkh]
Utter poppycock! We now know that the previous 18 years was fluctuation, not global warming.
~The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.~ American Physical Society, November, 2007 [56zqxr]
More drivel! Again there had only been fluctuation in the previous 17 years, and there has been no global warming in the five years since this statement was first published.
~The observed warming in recent decades is as expected from long-understood physics of the atmosphere.~ Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, 2005 [6u7meja]
The previous 15 years to this statement was nothing more than temperature fluctuation with no warming over the past 7 years. Will they correct this statement?
~Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.~ British Antarctic Survey statement endorsing the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007 [6qxpo6l]
There has been no “observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures” that has increased the net global temperature over the last 22 years, including the 17 years of fluctuation previous to this statement.
~Although the Earth’s climate has changed many times throughout its history, the rapid warming seen today cannot be explained by natural processes alone.~ United States Environmental Agency, 2009 [73ez3r4]
What “rapid warming seen today”? There has not been any net warming over the previous 22 years, and only fluctuation in the previous 19 years to this statement.
~Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate. … It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.~ – American Institute of Physics, current policy statement as of January, 2012 from December 2004 [2cxu6b]
Except it is NOT “virtually certain” that the climate is becoming warmer. However it is VIRTUALLY CERTAIN that the climate has NOT gotten any net warmer for the last 22 years.
~The 2007 Assessment Report of the UN’s climate change panel (the IPCC) – made up of the world’s foremost climate scientists – provided unequivocal evidence for a warming climate, and a high degree of certainty that human activities are largely responsible for global warming since the middle of the 20th century. However, the IPCC process is based only on information already published and even since the last Assessment Report the scientific evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened significantly.~ – Met Office 2009 Climate science statement [7l4ka3b]
This statement from the pinnacle of the anthropogenic global warming cult simply ignores the FACT that there had been only fluctuation in the previous 19 years and no net warming from 1990 to 2012. The “scientific evidence” – actual temperatures (duh!) – did NOT support that “dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened significantly”.
~Overall global emissions continue to rise at a rate of 1% per year. Research from the Met Office Hadley Centre has shown that by delaying action on carbon emissions there is a significant risk of larger increases in temperature over those from taking early action.~ Met Office, Early action on climate change needed [6nuoyrt]
More blather from the top of the global warming science cult. How can there be “a significant risk of larger increases in temperature” when there has been NO rise in net temperature since 1990 (the MET Office has recently in 2012 admitted that based on their most recent data there has, in fact, been no warming since 1997, but we saw in the previous essay that there has been no net warming since 1990).
~ “We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]”.~ Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, November, 2008 [6zuekb]
Here, the head etheist of the political propaganda arm of the cult flatly claims that global warming is accelerating “at a much faster rate” when there had been only fluctuation in the previous 18 years, and there has been no net global warming since 1990.
~ “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”~ Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, February, 2010 [7y4rmpm]
What “new data”? The data – actual temperature measurements – had shown only fluctuation for two decades when Ms. Pope made this statement, and now shows no net global warming for the period of 1990 to 2012.
~Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses produced by human activities. ~ – NASA, current page as of January, 2012 [64ataa2]
There’s that “continue” again. What do they mean, “continue to rise for decades”, when the net global temperature has NOT risen for 22 years (none other than the infamous director of the CRU, Phil Jones, has stated that there has been no global warming since 1995 if 1998 is taken as an El Niño anomaly year, which it most certainly was). [24corug]
~There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements~ The first two sentences in the Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change, 2005
This statement was endorsed by literally dozens of scientific societies and associations from around the world. [25xgzl, 24nnfxr] Here is a letter from October, 2009 signed by the heads of eighteen scientific organizations claiming that “climate change is occurring” (code words for global warming). [23t5oph] Here is another statement from May, 2009 signed by thirteen representatives of international scientific organizations, this time claiming that global warming is accelerating: “However, climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated”. [29b5rmx]
~One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government’s National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC’s lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports. … He wrote: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.’ … After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the ‘travesty’ was not the ‘pause’ but science’s failure to explain it.~ [24corug]
No Mr. Trenberth, it is not a travesty. It is empirical evidence. Anthropogenic global warming theory demands an ever increasing and accelerating global temperature following continuously increasing emissions. Like the quotes above, I bet almost every scientific society that supports anthropogenic global warming theory has a statement to this effect. On top of these projections, carbon dioxide emissions have increased dramatically since 1990, exacerbated by the burning peat bogs of Indonesia in 1997-98 and in 2004:
~The recent surge in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which made front-page headlines around the world last month, may have been caused in part by smouldering peat bogs in Borneo. This is the claim of a UK expert on the bogs, who says that further fires will accelerate global warming.~ [7af7h48, 852wmla]
The fact that global warming has not paralleled these immensely accelerated emissions is empirical evidence illustrating that their theory does not explain the actions of the climate. Global warming should not have stopped since 1990, but should have jumped (accelerated) since then. It is not the lack of an explanation for the evidence that is flawed – it is the theory that is flawed! Not only were these theorists wrong about the warming supposedly continuing, they were also wrong about it supposedly accelerating. But as seen in our Google searches and above quotes, many have continued to compound those lies by insisting that global warming has continued to accelerate right up to this day!ag
• President Obama lied about ‘accelerating’ global temperature
Update: For the past year even etheists have been mourning over the stall in global warming since 1998, but apparently no one informed President Obama. In a speech given on May 29, 2013, the President said: “We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.” [mjcg8c7] Now, get this American neighbor. We have just witnessed that dozens of scientific organizations around the world have been erroneously claiming accelerating global warming for the last ten years despite that there has been no global warming. And then, here comes the President of the United States making the astounding claim that even these dozens of scientific organizations have been lowballing it for the past ten years! Who can take anything this man says seriously?!?ah
• Carbon dioxide accelerates while global temperature decelerates
It is even worse than global temperatures not accelerating along with carbon dioxide emissions over the last 22 years. Look closely at the adjacent chart, American neighbor. Global temperatures have actually decelerated over the last fifty years compared to the previous fifty years, while emissions have skyrocketed. There simply is no correlation between anthropogenic emissions and global temperature, either in the short term or the long term: [*7rb9w3r, *7bxkbsf] The second chart is made from a completely different temperature data set from the first link, and confirms its finding.ai
• Here is your global warming consensus – based on a lie
Here is your “consensus”, American neighbor. The “consensus” is that dozens and dozens of scientific organizations around the world have colluded to insist that global warming has continued and accelerated for the past 22 years despite the fact that actual temperature measurements illustrate that there has been no warming. This is the “consensus” that etheists brag about. They make lists of these scientific organizations and parade them around the internet like a Super Bowl trophy as if they prove something legitimate, but the “consensus” is based on flat-out lies, American neighbor. All of these organizations know that there has been no net warming for the last 22 years, yet they persist with their fraudulent declarations anyway. Some “consensus”…aj
• Are there ‘any’ credible scientists in the global warming movement?
Do you think there is one credible scientist that would stake their integrity on climate computer models? Well thousands of envirotheist scientists did, and look what happened to their integrity. They all sacrificed their self-interest to their greed in receiving funding through participation in the liberal groupthink programs of anthropogenic global warming. Did they arrive at their decision through the scientific method? No. The scientific method tells us that there is nowhere near enough reliable data to produce an accurate conclusion on climate change. Orthodox climate science is nothing more than a modern version of Cargo cult science. [l9odumt] Climate scientists play at religious rituals emulating what they think is science like primitive tribesman attempting to call back the global warming they once saw in their data, but that has long since disappeared. Their greed overcame their self-interest and they willingly sacrificed their integrity to conform to the prevalent and profitable groupthink mantra of anthropogenic global warming theory.
But what is left for them? The funding for these etheist scientists is dependant on the climate models being accurate, or at least being perceived as accurate. Their resumés are now blighted with being willing participants in a giant scientific hoax. Do they jeopardize their careers and denounce those climate models and their erroneous conclusions? No, they make excuses and demand that the public ignore their failed computer model errors and now accept their word on blind faith. Did you get that point, American neighbor? In the nineties these scientists demanded that we accept their computer climate models as reliable projections of climate change. But now after 22 years their computer models have all been proven to be failures! So now they want us to ignore their failures and accept their word on faith alone. These etheist scientists are the real villains of this story, American neighbor. They demand that mankind sacrifice trillions of dollars worth of prosperity fighting their phantoms just so they do not have to admit to their greed, errors and frauds. You have been had, American neighbor. We have all been had. No doubt the East Anglia CRU hack of thousands of emails and files is but the tip of a very dark and ugly iceberg (more later). [46uexj] Update: Since I wrote that last sentence in 2010, 5,000 more emails as damming or more so, have been released in 2011 – Climategate II.ak
• After 22 years – faith in the same global warming scientists?
Is the planet warming? Possibly, over some shorter or longer time intervals. Do we understand the mechanism of that possible warming? At best we can identify the possible influences on this climate change, as I listed in the last essay. But to think that we can quantify all of those influences into usable data is to think utter nonsense. Can we then conclude that mankind is the cause of global warming? Quite obviously, using a little common sense we cannot possibly make that conclusion. Anyone who claims that the science of anthropogenic global warming is settled is simply an etheist ideologue, American neighbor. No sane person would continue to put their faith in a diagnostic clinic that failed them for 22 years, or continue to rely on a consultant to expand their company’s worth that failed them for 22 years, or reinvest their money with a broker that failed them for 22 years. And no one but an etheist ideologue would continue to put their faith in a scientific community that has compromised their integrity for the sake of their greed, and has been proven wrong for the last 22 years with what they insisted was impossible, actually happening. They are incompetents at best, and charlatans at worst – or simply just liberals.al
• Most global warming scientists are probably in it just for the perks alone
Think about this American neighbor. Let’s say we could put all of the scientists in the world that are currently funded, based on the supposed accuracy anthropogenic global warming theory, in one room. And then we ask them to vote on whether their funding should continue based on the outcomes of the (
25) 65 computer climate models of the IPCC that they insisted could accurately project the future. Do you think they would vote to toss under the bus those failed ( 25) 65 computer models that have been wrong for 22 years, or do you think they would vote to cut off their own funding? I think it would be a very bumpy bus ride. Scientists love money too. [*ccbnwop] After all, besides the well funded careers for these bloodsuckers, look at the annual perks; two weeks of all expenses paid climate conferences in the most exotic locations around the world to preen and rant and receive pats on the back about their favorite topic every year – Geneva, Switzerland, Berlin, Germany, The Hague, Netherlands, Milan, Italy, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Montreal, Canada, Nairobi, Kenya, Bali, Indonesia, Poznań, Poland, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Kyoto, Japan, Bonn, Germany, Marrakech, Morocco, New Delhi, India, Cancún, Mexico, Copenhagen, Denmark, Durban, South Africa, Doha, Qatar, plus dozens of other “events” to fill out their expense calendar every year. [799de9r, 74bu4r5] Who would want to give that up without a fight?
Now in 2014 we have a number to put to these conference goers. Oxford academic Benito Muller lets the cat out of the bag by describing these free loaders perpetratating this hoax for their own personal benefits as “a roving village of 5,000 people”. [ox4scd9]am
• Al Gore instructs scientists on producing propaganda
Do not think for a moment that the failure of those (
25) 65 computer models will stop etheists from using more computer models to protect their funding and all expense paid trips. Speaking to the SC09 supercomputing conference in Portland, Oregon in November, 2009 Al Gore is reported to have encouraged further use of computer models to push anthropogenic global warming theory. [2aksvfr] Note that Gore simply assumed that the new models would support his theory and could be used as evidence to convince the public. Again – that is not how science works. That is how propaganda works. If those ( 25) 65 IPCC computer models had worked there would have been a projection of no net global warming since 1990. But they didn’t. And there is no reason to think that they could have – or that any new computer models could have either. Only a propagandist, confident of the scientific community’s complicity would dare to suggest that his theory would be proven correct the next time.
And do not be fooled by all of the noise in the media about polar bears dying (their population has doubled over the last fifty years), because supposedly the Arctic’s ice is receding at an alarming rate (it’s normal, and the Antarctic’s is growing), or the oceans are rising at an alarming rate (they are normal), or that there is more drought than before (there isn’t), or that there would be more even larger hurricanes (there have been less), or that there would be more larger tornadoes (there have been less), or any number of other horror stories designed to scare the public into supporting anthropogenic global warming theory (most of these issues were dealt with above). The primary issue is not whether the globe is warming or not. Did you get that, American neighbor? By itself the issue of whether the globe is in fact warming or not does not matter. Global warming only matters if it is indeed warming, and mankind is the sole, definitive cause. Just as with the computer models none of these scare stories are evidence that man is the problem.an
• Science schmience
Oh yeah – and more about that “consensus” thing. If you think there is a “97%” consensus among scientists on global warming, you had better rethink that as well. [*2a2swdo] Update: There is another 97% consensus report out. It’s just as bogus as the first claim: [*azyctwp, *pcbncuh]
~ “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”~ – Upton Sinclair
Most scientists that agree with anthropogenic global warming theory are on the big government take, and are ignorant or deliberately blind (playing stupid) to the immense corruption at the top of the global warming pyramid scheme. If there is such a supposed consensus, then who exactly are the scientists that discovered the above listed frauds? And are you also counting the etheist global warming scientists that committed those frauds and the etheist scientists behind those organizational policy statements of a continuing and accelerating warming listed above as legitimate? If anything, MOST legitimate, uncompromised scientists do NOT support anthropogenic global warming theory, and all of the citizens of the world should be glad for this. [yzywkn9, ylxz7ro, 2hmrer, chw2ud, 7bowbod] Here is an example where a virtually unanimously accepted 200-year-old consensus about the limitations of how crystals form turned out to be wrong. So even a real consensus proves nothing. [*69t5dg9] And it turns out in a Yale study that: “the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.” So this popular liberal mantra that “deniers” are scientific illiterates is actually another liberalism. It seems that it is liberals that are the proverbial country bumpkins, and more specifically, it is Tea Partiers that are the science literates. [*ntxb22y, *7pk7y3n, 3oxe2kz]
• Nothing sacrosanct about science
But let’s be frank about this, American neighbor. There is nothing sacrosanct about science. I know, I know, liberals will hear this and roll their eyes, muttering about knuckle-dragging flat-earthers and Inquisitions about the sun revolving around the earth. Here – allow me to open your eyes about science, American neighbor. It isn’t like science is infallible – far from it. Over half of all scientific findings eventually end up in doubt, superceded or completely refuted. [25nbdgv, c94hl6, 3wsqcy8, 5o9lz4, bq764dx, bxjscpk, llrs3u4] Did you get that, American neighbor? Let me repeat: Over half of all scientific findings eventually end up in doubt, superceded or completely refuted. We saw in #10 Regulamageddon – The 2008 Financial Crisis that unquestioning liberal faith in scientific computer models used for assembling the securitization of debt turned into a huge contribution to the 2008 financial meltdown. We also witnessed in #19 Disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory that similar global warming climate models have completely failed. The theory of Isostasy, pertaining to the mechanics of the earth’s crust, was accepted as thoroughly settled science from 1889 to 1955 when the evidence for the Continental Drift theory (which had been around since 1912) overwhelmed it. [nbtt59s] The standard model of the universe for the last 40 years has included what is known as cold dark matter to solve a number of problems within cosmic theories. Now it turns out that cold dark matter may have to be abandoned or vastly modified. [6yac7k3] The size of the proton, “the primary building block of the visible universe” has now been discovered to be smaller than first accepted, causing a total rethink of quantum electrodynamics (a quantum field theory of the electromagnetic force), that had been thought of as settled science since 1965. [2u83p4k] The consensus belief that the universe is expanding but decelerating persisted for over seventy years until in 1998 it was discovered that the expansion is in fact accelerating. The black hole theory has been around since the eighteenth century, and was established as settled science with Einstein’s theory of relativity. In 2014 Steven Hawking may have falsified the black hole. [p7re42t] And now there are questions in physics about the fine-structure constant, which is one of the most basic rules supposedly governing the workings of the universe. Almost any combination of these recent findings could throw much of physics theory since Einstein into flux. [4qaut67] So now, even the very “laws of nature” may be questionable – but we simply must not question global warming theory?!? Uh-huh… That’s what international bankers thought with their new-fangled Guassian copula function that magnified the 2008 American housing bubble bust into a worldwide financial calamity. Don’t deify science, American neighbor.ap
• The modern-day Inquisition of the consensus establishment
So, who is it today that really parallels the Inquisition who insisted that the consensus science of their day had conclusively established that the sun revolved around the earth, American neighbor? It was the inquisition geocentrists of the Roman Church that insisted that they had the consensus. It was the inquisition geocentrists who were the consensus establishment of their day – running the universities, the governments and the religious orders, etc. It was the inquisition geocentrists who demanded that their beliefs be taught without challenge. It was the inquisition geocentrists who arrested the skeptic Galileo. But it was skeptics like Copernicus and Galileo who boldly stood up to the status quo of the Roman consensus establishment. The consensus science of that era promoted the agenda of the church, and geocentrism was considered unchallengeable. Today, it is inquisition liberals who are the consensus establishment. Today, it is inquisition envirotheists who refuse legitimate debate. Today, it is inquisition liberals who demand that skeptics, who are called deniers (today’s equivalent of heretics that Copernicus and Galileo were labeled), should just shut up. Today, it is anthropogenic global warming theory that is considered unchallengeable. Today, it is inquisition envirotheists who want skeptics’ credentials stripped from them. Today, it is inquisition liberals that want skeptics arrested. Today, it is inquisition envirotheists who want skeptics treated as mentally ill (like Stalin did to his opponents). Today, it is inquisition liberals who want to burn down skeptics’ houses. Today, it is inquisition envirotheists who propose putting democracy on hold to fight their phantom global warming. Today, it is inquisition liberals who will believe pretty much anything proclaimed by a so-called scientist that agrees with their liberal agenda, and will scoffingly dismiss all evidence that challenges their march toward utopia.aq
• Global warming scientists have destroyed the integrity of science
The odds of scientific conclusions ultimately being accurate are less than one out of two chances. In other words, you have better odds flipping a coin, American neighbor. Even the peer review process is questionable as to its value even when properly applied. [8srnfme, ybe3cn6] But if some supposed science promotes liberalism, liberals will defend it beyond rationality. Environmental projections have a history of failure. [6chnrk7] Global warming has simply illustrated that when science and ideology mix, a hearty dose of skepticism is a very healthy attitude. There is nothing sacrosanct about scientists – they are political animals too. Many scientists, including virtually the whole environmental establishment are ideological liberals that follow liberal principles just like any other liberal does. Global warming for liberals is just another demagogic tool with which to establish big government control, institute utopia, and line their own pockets. [*mygw7b, *75hbrfk]
The integrity of the science community has taken a serious blow as a result of these countless climate science frauds. (And it is not just the climate science that has problems. [*83lfk3k, 2cjbakg, q5hckfd]) The CRU emails revealed a you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours peer review process that undermines the whole scientific system.
If you think that peer-reviewed publication in scientific journals is a big deal – don’t! Anyone can publish anything with no scientific work done at all. Ottawa Citizen journalist Tom Spears made up a scientific paper which he describes as “gobbledygook” and submitted it to 18 research journals for peer-review and publication. He plagiarized everything in his paper including the title, while combining excerpts from a geology paper with a paper on stem cell treatment of cancer (LOL!). 16 of the 18 “journals” offered to publish his “work”. [k3g6b73] This is just one more segment of the dark underbelly of science.
Now that the public is awakening to the fact that anthropogenic global warming theory is a political game built on a matrix of frauds it may take decades to repair the damage of the public’s lost faith in the supposed nobility of science. But out of the ashes is developing a new process that is much more open, called peer to peer review. [66cvnus] This has been developed and embraced by the skeptics community. Perhaps this could be science’s salvation.ar
• Global warming theory isn’t about science
But if you still think anthropogenic global warming theory is about science then learn what earns standing ovations at climate summits like Copenhagen:
~When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening. But then he wound up to his grand conclusion…”socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell…let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation. He is Hugo Chavez, socialist dictator of Venezuela.~ [y9zlx2v]
Look, here is the 800 pound gorilla question that completely delegitimatizes claims by envirotheists that mankind can direct the climate: Etheists have claimed that we must trust their climate computer models, but they have all failed dramatically. Etheists have insisted that global warming would continue to accelerate, but this prediction has also dramatically failed. For the last 22 years there has been no net global warming, but anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have grown higher in this period than in any other similar sized period in recent history. This begs the question, how could we hope to reduce global warming simply by reducing the growth rate of emissions when Mother Nature can overrule the supposed influence of even the most extreme emission growth rates at any time, as in the last 22 years and 59 of the last 75 years? Temperatures were higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today, without the emissions. Obviously, Mother Nature is completely in charge, not us.as
• Corporeal science, recondite science and psuedo-science
After presenting all of the above frauds am I now a “skeptic”? The way I see it, there are two kinds of hard science; corporeal science and recondite science. Corporeal science produces iPhones using science that says, “since this, then that”. Things can actually be done with corporeal science, and you know if the science is right by whether they work or not. Recondite science plays with ideas and theoreticals about things that are beyond our ability to directly touch and use, like quantum mechanics which describes the macro details of how the universe works on a micro level. It uses an “if this, then that” scenario. However, for a “science” to be considered a legitimate recondite science, all of the significant “ifs” must be taken into account. Global warming theory falls into neither of these science categories. It is a pseudo-science without a home. It would be recondite science, except that it does not take into account all of the significant “ifs” (not even close). The only real things that are hard science about it are snapshot observations of the past and relatively recent real-time measurements (that show no net warming for the last 22 years or 59 of the last 75 years). But the mechanisms of how the climate works are hardly understood the way an iPhone can be designed, manufactured and enjoyed. And it cannot be calculated and experimented on like gravity. The climate and its influences can be observed in some detail on a macro level, but only for a very small portion of time. The further back in history one goes the more obscure the information on a micro level. But by definition, the climate can really only be understood on a macro level over very long periods of time, so we are hamstrung by our inability to measure the climate and all of the possible influences over the long length of time needed to actually understand them. Even on a micro level in the short term, at the state of mankind’s scientific abilities today, it is like a caveman trying to understand quantum mechanics. We are still grappling with consistently predicting the weather a week out, no matter the climate a century out.
Anthropogenic global warming theory is an attempt to make hard decisions based on a very soft understanding. It is much more ideology and politics than hard science, and is therefore prone to political manipulation. Global warming science is probably the single greatest example of the decline effect, where an initial theory, once thought to be possibly legitimate, has long since ceased to live up to both the theory and its following science. [*ob5e33o, *nsh7stg, *lfwmlfm] All that these frauds do is confirm to me that some so-called “science” can be trusted less than ever, especially when elements of ideology and government control are involved. Who can trust a “science” where dozens of international scientific organizations insist something is happening when what little actual hard scientific observations we have (the net global temperatures of the last 22 years) completely contradict the fundamental assertions of that so-called “science”? So while I am still an agnostic on global warming overall, I will honestly admit that based on the very limited hard science that can be known, I am also a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming. It is hard not to be when there is so much phony “science” on the other side seemingly produced on the basis of ideology and greed for power.at
• One climate model works with 100% accuracy
There is only one climate model that has ever worked – and it works at a rate of 100% accuracy. That is the climate itself. And for the last 22 years and 59 of the last 75 years this climate model has refuted the greenhouse gas theory and anthropogenic global warming theory. What little greenhouse effect there may be is obviously easily over-ridden by other climatic influences, at times making greenhouse gases virtually irrelevant within the margins of variability. Unlike the conclusions of those other models with their inadequate pseudo-scientific math equations, our new conclusion is based on a corporeal scientific model of historic empirical evidence that says, “since this, then that”. Yup, the science is settled – since there has been no global warming over the last 22 years despite the sky-rocketing of supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then the so-called science of anthropogenic global warming that relies on the greenhouse theory is wrong.
Here is an interesting bit of corporeal evidence: There has not been a continental high temperature record set anywhere on the globe since 1977. [mqf6qmn]
Europe – 118.4F – 1977
Antarctica – 59.0F – 1974
Australia – 123.3F – 1960
Asia – 129.2F – 1942
Africa – 131.0 – 1931
South America – 120.4F – 1920
North America – 134.0F – 1913
I’ll let you figure out the “since this, then that”.
And one last thing, American neighbor. Carbon dioxide is good for the planet. [*9quk4e2] Yes, you read that correctly. An increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere promotes plant growth with less water necessary (that’s why they use it in greenhouses – not to increase the temperature, but to increase plant growth).au
• Apocalyptic phantoms of liberal paranoia
Since #2 Contemporary American Liberalism = Paranoid Delusion, the evidence has consistently grown illustrating that liberal paranoia is based on a belief that everything that does not agree with liberalism or is perceived to impede the construction of utopia, simply must be evil – progressive-fascism. But there is another aspect of liberal paranoia – the fear of phantoms. Liberals are also terrified of all that threatens progress toward utopia in regard to health and the environment. This has led to many panicked responses to imaginary cataclysms and apocalypses, costing in both, vast amounts of wasted money and even human lives. [*422syw9]
• 1960s – Early envirotheist, Rachel Carson wrote a book named Silent Spring claiming that the very effective pesticide, DDT was a cause of human cancer and bird population depletion. Neither turned out to be true, but her passionate, radical stance birthed the envirotheist movement in America. She truly encapsulated liberalism in a single person. She was an extreme paranoid of two full-blown apocalypses – one supposedly devastating the bird populations of the world, and the other supposedly devastating the human populations of the world. In the cruelest of ironies she instead unleashed inevitable liberal unintended consequences where Carson herself has become the indirect cause of the things she feared most. Silent Spring led to a ban on the use of DDT as a preventive measure against deadly mosquito-borne Malaria which directly resulted in literally tens of millions of needless human deaths throughout the world over the decades since her book. And now her subsequent envirotheist movement has actually helped bring on the silent spring that she so feared. It has now been determined that up to 39 million birds per year are killed by the very emblem of envirotheism itself – wind mill electricity generators. [dxagmzo] Regardless, Carson is still upheld by liberals as a pioneering heroine of the environmental movement. [42lu2jy] For a thorough debunking of Silent Spring read this: [24gns3]
• 1960s – Envirotheist apocalypse prophet Paul Ehrlich wrote the book The Population Bomb predicting that a cataclysmic worldwide famine due to overpopulation would cause mass starvation. This made Ehrlich instantly famous, but the eventual failure of his prophesy has not diminished him in liberal eyes – he is still surprisingly viewed as an ‘expert’ on overpopulation. Recently, he made the news for actually claiming all of his predictions were accurate. [insert Twilight Zone music here] [6bagf6]
• 1970s – The seventies brought the Armageddon scare of anthropogenic global cooling causing a new ice age. This apocalypse theory prevailed in the media and academia well into the eighties, until anthropogenic global warming theory replaced it. Etheist NASA scientist, James Hansen was an early proponent, but instead of being discredited by the abandonment of the cooling theory, liberals have instead elevated him even further as a champion of the newer anthropogenic global warming theory. [zz7oc, 4kwlklq]
• 1970s – Of course, the 1970s also produced panic over nuclear power plants. Liberal etheists were convinced that the technology was uncontrollable and would lead to multiple failures and untold misery and death around the world. But nuclear power is by far the safest energy source in the world. [6kqfu4t]
• 1980s – Related to nuclear power was the threat of nuclear war by that cowboy, Ronald Reagan. Liberals just knew that Reagan was going start World War Three and destroy the whole planet. Instead, he ended the Cold War without a shot fired.
• 1980s – Ozone depletion supposedly causes skin cancer and vision problems, but similar to all of the apocalypse theories, there is no actual scientific evidence to support this theory. Nevertheless, we’re supposed to spend mega amounts of money fighting this phantom. [y9yh373, 27wgxfb]
• 1980s – American forest depletion became a major apocalypse when the terms “clear cutting” and “old growth forest” were combined by envirotheists to scare urbanites into thinking Bambi and his friends would lose their homes forever, but over the last one hundred years the amount of forest cover in the United States has basically remained unchanged (it is actually marginally up since 1910). [3kdolak]
• 1990s – Another envirotheist scare tactic is to claim that the world’s tropical rainforests are being permanently depleted before our very eyes. Unsurprisingly, somebody forgot to tell Mother Nature, who has this nasty habit of overrunning areas with vegetation in tropical areas. [6cabdvh, 6cflr7m]
• 1990s – Cholesterol and animal fats were targeted as the number one causes of heart disease and obesity. Society was inundated with food regulations and lectures by liberals on diet, insisting that fatty meats be substituted with carbohydrate grains, nuts, vegetables and fruits. But mankind’s digestive system has little in common with herbivores and much more in common with carnivores. Mankind’s intestines are the same relative lengths as common carnivores like dogs and cats, whereas herbivore have intestines that are up to five times longer. Carnivores, as with mankind, have a hydrochloric acid based stomach for breaking down proteins, whereas herbivores digest using a much longer fermentation process to break down carbohydrate fibers (fermentation of beans, grains and nuts is harmful to the human colon, where much of it takes place). The Inuit of the far north lived for dozens of generations on a diet purely of animal and fish proteins and fats. It has now been discovered that the real culprits of heart disease (and many other ailments) are omega-6 acids primarily derived from grain/nut/vegetable carbohydrates and oils. [6mnq3lt, yqtdcm]
• 1990s – Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) became all the rage as a blanket disorder for bad behavior. Today, with the extremely broad definition, almost everyone could be diagnosed with ADHD and treated with drugs. This is that John Dewey thing that nobody is really to blame for their bad behavior. [mfyjl2c]
• 2000s – Swine flu was whipped into a worldwide frenzy by the nanny World Health Organization and mass media as especially dangerous for the elderly and very young. It turned out to be no more dangerous than other influenzas. [dbrgm2]
• 2000s – The World Health Organization again signaled another apocalypse warning that cell phone radiation could cause cancer. Again, without evidence. [82ugq]
• 2000s – The Alberta oilsands (so-called “dirty oil”) are now one of the envirotheist movement’s biggest bugaboos, supposedly destroying North American forests and river systems, as well as being a major emitter of supposed greenhouse gases. I’ll put this one to bed myself in the next essay.
• 2000s – Peak oil is the envirotheist movement’s scare tactic to claim that we’re running out of oil in the world. I’ll put peak oil to bed right beside supposedly “dirty” oilsands oil as well.
• 2010s – Recently, excessive salt intake, supposedly because of modern processed foods has been targeted by liberals as a cause of heart disease. First of all, there has been no excessive salt consumption. Average consumer intake of salt is the same today as it was 50 years ago. [n289uhn] Second, too little salt is actually what is bad for you. [*ky3sqbn, *o2uu9g3] It turns out that people consume salt the same way they consume water. When the body is dehydrated a person becomes thirsty and consumes water to resume the proper balance in the body. When a person is low on salt they have a craving for salt. That is why salt consumption is the same today as it was 50 years ago. As with water, the body regulates itself.
• 2010s – Now that anthropogenic global warming theory is in serious worldwide decline as the apocalypse of the moment, new Armageddons are already being fine-tuned for its replacement. There is ocean acidification that is supposed to destroy the great reefs and fish stocks – it’s not. There is an oldy-but-goody making a comeback – resource depletion. Julian Simon put that one to bed decades ago. Then there is the biodiversity collapse apocalypse – more nonsense. There is fracking supposedly causing earthquakes and polluting water tables. Another even scarier one is oxygen depletion (help me, American neighbor – I can’t breath, I can’t bre…). [/sarcastic melodramatics] Liberals like to think of themselves as founded in science, supposedly unlike mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging conservatives. In fact, this list proves that it is liberals who are anti-science, willing believe almost any nut with an apocalyptic scenario, regardless of its lack of actual catalogued evidence or lack of adherence to scientific principles, instead closing their eyes to any real contradicting science. Throw in the liberal phobias for tungsten light bulbs, SUVs, Dominionism, Walmart, the Bilderburg Group, extinction of the Polar Bear, the Tea Party and a hundred other things, and you can see for yourself, American neighbor, there is something just not right about liberalism – liberals are paranoid of just about everything! This is not just based on deduction, American neighbor. There are documented, compulsive ramifications from this kind of paranoia: [*75flnnk]
Update: Here is an interesting article with additional information on previously predicted apocalypses and Armageddons: [*dxu99yb] And here is one about a possible ‘apocallypse’ that might be caused by green energy: [*qylfouv]av
• The cult of warm and their totems
Adherents to anthropogenic global warming theory are little different than doomsday cults who prophesy an end of the world. When things don’t go as first thought, the cultist simply reaffirms his faith, moves the date, and continues on as if nothing has changed. Envirotheists are doing the same thing. Virtually nothing is going as they projected, but they refuse to lose faith. They simply ignore that the climate is doing what they said could not possibly happen. Instead they continue on with their chant that global warming is still happening and accelerating despite that is has actually stopped in the short term and is decelerating in the long term compared to carbon dioxide emissions. So-called climate change is like coming to a railway crossing with the bells ringing, and the red lights flashing, and the global warming express approaching at full steam with railcar after railcar filled with fraud after fraud after fraud. Liberals are so fearful of not reaching their imagined destination of utopia in time that they are intent on racing the world economy over the crossing hoping it doesn’t get smashed into a million pieces. This is no way to run a world, American neighbor. You wouldn’t race a train, would you? [*7py2lgk]
~…the Cult of Warm has no use for science except as a totem to wave over the crowd. They don’t want to be the seekers for knowledge, but the exclusive possessors of absolute truths. And that isn’t how science works.~aw
• Deprogramming lessons
Blackshirt apocalypse propaganda is a prime example of conditioning society into accepting liberalism: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning. Based on liberal paranoia, of course: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. Anthropogenic global warming theory is all about playing stupid: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. It is an example of the Paranoid Style of Politics using an apocalypse to promote liberal utopia: Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable. If America won’t willingly accept liberal solutions then they should be forced upon her: For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it. But it is all lies: Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie. Any contrary counterarguments are irrelevant: For contemporary liberals superficial rationalization is always the first and final element in their ideological line of thought.
In the previous essay we learned that global warming theory is nothing more than a noble lie. In this essay we have learned that the noble lie of global warming theory is actually an amalgamation of dozens of liberalisms. Really though, American neighbor, again we have a second whole essay right out of the “And you thought Sarah Palin was stupid…” file. Our MCTE question for this essay was: “Are you one of those liberals that worships science, American neighbor?” Speaking for myself as a conservative, when I said science schmience above, it is not that I don’t value science. It is that I don’t value liberal principles applied to science. I’m sure all conservatives and real scientists would agree.
Mark Twain said, “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t.” Imagine if there never was a global warming issue. Imagine if nobody cared about the climate. Now imagine if a great author of our time wrote a fiction novel describing exactly what has happened in the last twenty-five years in regard to the global warming movement – the wild claims, the multitude of climate science failures, the vast amounts of money wasted, a global temperature that refuses to rise. The novel would be a huge flop. Nobody would buy it and nobody would read it. For a fiction novel to work it must still have associations with the real world. Fiction must rationalize with reality in some way – there must be a legitimate connection. No one would ever accept a global warming story told in fiction about what has actually happened as legitimately rationalizable. The story would be considered too outlandish, too irreconcilable with reality – just plain silly.
I began the previous essay by asking you this, American neighbor: “Tell me, American neighbor, would you consider a constant fear of imagined, developing apocalypses a healthy human condition?” No, neither would I. Liberalism is definitely unhealthy. I also asked you: “How much has the net global temperature risen since 1990?” We have seen that, in fact, the global median temperature is the same in the year 2012 as it was in the year 1990. After 22 years of hype, envirothiest’s own numbers show that there has been no net global warming. It is all a myth.ax
• Deprogramming exercise
For your deprogramming exercise read this: [*ygpqqca] and this [*yf29386] If you think all of the peer-reviewed science supports anthropogenic global warming theory, think again: [*c2kcqpd] And here is a literally priceless comparison of the financial cost of supposedly stopping global warming compared to simply adapting to the changing climate. [*khljlou]ay
• Humor, sort-of
For this end of essay humor we have a little video chuckle:
President Barack Obama inadvertently let out some global warming humor of his own in his first State of the Union address. His reference to “overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change” brought out incredulous guffaws from his Congressional audience and provoked wink and nod smiles from Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden (seated behind him). Along with Obama’s own knowing look of chagrin, it was well worth the price of admission. [*yeyccst]
As a bonus, Al Gore decided to take some his favorite BFFs to Antarctica to witness the dangerous effects of global warming first hand. Try a Google search for the interesting evidence they witnessed that proves that the planet is doomed: >al gore antarctic cruise< or >al gore antarctic expedition< Oops… I guess they didn’t witness much, because I could find no reports in the Google results of any witnessed evidence. Almost all of the results are announcements for the trip still to be made. Maybe it’s because sea ice area in the Antarctic is up 20% since 1979. The ship’s name wasn’t the Costa Concordia, was it? [79kcm2u]
Update: In late 2013 a group of etheist scientists and eco-tourists got hilariously stuck in Antarctic sea ice while there to prove that global warming had melted all of the ice. It reminds me of the stories of alien-cultists who at a preordained date climb a mountain to be beamed up to the mothership, only to have skulk back down the mountain after freezing through days of abject disappointment and humiliation. [ognogrz]