rss icon

RSS

calm within soothing music advert


Custom Search


The Global Warming Myth


The Global warming myth is driven by opportunistic politics and not by science. Politics is its very nature, an opportunistic game and when politicians sense an issue they can use, they tend to blow it out of proportion for political gain without any regard to whether there is any substance in it. The scientists supporting this myth are also opportunistic. Since the politicians control the budget and the academics live off these funds, these scientists have found an area where they can carve out a career niche with a steady funding stream. Business is quick to supply a new demand. Since business is another source for academic funding, some researchers design their projects around available funding and this leads them to justify the presupposition or hypothesis. A perfect case of, ‘I scratch your back and you scratch mine.’


When these dynamic forces connect, a momentum carries the hypothetical idea into the sphere of an accepted ‘fact’. The scientists who support the new idea are not actually deceiving; they are themselves self-deceived. Their need to finance their institute or department, drive their career forward and a myriad of other factors cause them to fall into the paradigm trap. As a consensus builds up of other likeminded scientists it becomes easier to justify their change of course into the new area.


The global warming hysteria is a field where ‘applied science’ can flourish unhindered by basic research pointing out the basic errors in the hypothesis. But some may ask, ‘Isn’t the earth warming, Arctic ice melting and weather patterns changing?’ Yes they are. The fact that global warming is taking place is not disputed; what is disputed is the cause and linking carbon dioxide emissions as a primary cause.


Climate change is normal on Earth. There are the yearly cycles, spring, summer, autumn and winter, then there are longer cycles. We are at present still coming out of the ‘Little Ice Age’, so a gradual warming is only to be expected. That is what happens when one comes out of a cold period.


In medieval times, between 1000 and 1300 A.D. the earth went through a period of global warming, which was then followed by the ‘Little Ice Age’, which continued, to the middle of the 1800s. Greenland did have green coasts during the medieval warming period. There is also a question as to what is ‘normal’ climate, since we are supposed to be in an interglacial period. In other words, in a ‘normal’ climate New York is under a mile thick ice sheet. In this context a few degrees of warming over a few decades might be welcome. The influence of mankind on Earth’s climate was less during the Middle Ages than it has been for the last 100 years, so why was the climate warmer then?


Those dramatic scenes of icebergs breaking off glaciers are also normal. That is what glaciers do. Water in rivers run downhill and ice in glaciers move downhill. Glaciers move slower than water in rivers since ice is solid, but they always move and change.


The polar caps on Mars are evaporating as our Arctic ice is melting. Our greatest impact on Mars was when the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed into the surface of Mars in September 1999. Pluto is also undergoing a warming phase. Hurricane storms on Jupiter hint at climate change there as well. What Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Pluto have in common is the Sun. The Sun’s activity and their elliptical orbit round the Sun correlate well with global warming and cooling over centuries. Need we look any further than the obvious?


The atmosphere does not have the heat capacity to be able to heat the oceans. It is the other way around. The oceans heat the atmosphere. This is how hurricanes develop. During El Nino events it is the ocean that affects the atmosphere.


The most common greenhouse gas is not carbon dioxide, but water vapour. Preventing water evaporation on Earth is not feasible. The carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere every year by human activity is within normal (natural) carbon dioxide fluctuations, in other words, nature can absorb the carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere every year. The Earth's natural carbon dioxide regulator, are the oceans. For example, during an El Nino phase the water in the Pacific Ocean heat up releasing carbon dioxide, and reabsorb the carbon dioxide when the Pacific Ocean cools, and thus stopping the El Nino conditions.


Carbon dioxide makes up 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere. An addition of 1% carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would increase the carbon dioxide content by 0.00038%. Water vapour (clouds) will still be the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, weighing in at 1% of Earth's atmosphere.


Forty, fifty years ago, the talk was that we were heading for an ice age. That was after over a hundred years of intense carbon dioxide emitting industrial activity. During the 1970s the consensus changed to a warming trend. Attention seeking scientists climbed on to the global warming bandwagon.


A recent NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory article stated, ‘not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.’


Money is being poured into projects built around the notion that our carbon dioxide emissions are the driving force. This effects even farmers in Zambia who’s products, produced with a near zero ‘carbon footprint’, are exported to Europe with a huge ‘carbon footprint’ because the produce is transported by air. The Zambian farmers are then penalized because of ‘their’ carbob footprint. Grain that should be used for food is converted to ethanol under the understanding that this is clean carbon, unlike petroleum carbon, which is dirty carbon.

When these dynamic forces connect, a momentum carries the hypothetical idea into the sphere of an accepted ‘fact’. The scientists who support the new idea are not actually deceiving; they are themselves self-deceived. Their need to finance their institute or department, drive their career forward and a myriad of other factors cause them to fall into the paradigm trap. As a consensus builds up of other likeminded scientists it becomes easier to justify their change of course into the new area.


The fact that the ethanol is produced in coal fired plants thereby generating masses of dirty carbon (thousands of tons of coal per day) to produce a little clean carbon from food needed for human consumption in a world where millions are starving, appears to somehow get lost in the fog of media global warming hysteria. There are hundreds of scientists speaking out against the global warming hysteria, but are being ignored by mainstream media. News media naturally prefer describing disasters as that is what sells.


In Brazil, vast areas of ecologically friendly forest have been cleared for sugar cane plantations in order to produce ethanol, under the guise of environmental concern. What is ignored is the sugar cane leaves are burned before the cane is harvested, and this is followed by coal fuelled industrial processes to convert the sugar to ethanol. The little benefit by driving hybrid cars on ‘environmentally friendly’ ethanol is outweighed by the environmentally unfriendly process of producing the ethanol in the first place.


The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize together with Al Gore, ‘for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.’ However many of the scientists, listed as contributors, disagreed with the panel's conclusions.


Two concepts are often lumped together. Pollution and global warming should not be considered as two sides of the same issue. Humans are the chief cause of pollution and the destruction of our environment. We have the potential to reduce pollution from coal and petroleum products, which release harmful substance like sulphur, and develop ‘green’ products. ‘Global warming’ on the other hand, is taking place and there is nothing we can do about it, as we are not responsible for it. The warming is directly correlated with the increased activity in the sun. There is nothing mankind has ever done or could ever do to control the sun’s activity.


The global warming scare is a politically generated issue without a foundation in solid science. The present warming phase will turn to a cooling phase, and this we will experience in the future. This global warming is a normal condition for the Earth as spring is when it follows winter.





calm within soothing music advert


Custom Search






Science Articles: