9 March 2007

The Great Global Warming Swindle

One of the added benefits of having read Geology is that one can easily tell apart the bullshit from the science when it comes to earth's matters. In recent days I participated in an online debate casa de Miguel (see comment section) about global warming. My take about this issue has been the same all along; one must always doubt whatever argument the Left puts forward. If apart from being adopted by the neo-progressive forces the issue captivates the attention of multi billion dollar NGOs, parasitic multilateral bodies and the radical establishment all the more reason to question it. In the instance of global warming only ignoramuses will affirm that the current warming trend is man made. Lacking credible evidence to prove their point the global warming fraternity has developed a political clout comparable to the coming apocalypses it insists in predicting. Geology teaches us that earth has undergone many periods of warming and cooling. In fact the geological record contains evidence of this cycle when man wasn't even around. Therefore to conclude that today's warming is due to carbon emissions generated by our burning of fossil fuels or carbon footprint is just bullshit. Any person slightly familiarized with geological precepts knows that the biggest source of greenhouse gases -read water vapour- are the oceans. That much no one can begin to dispute. But why this sudden necessity of blaming humans for global warming? Why the conscious disregard for science when it does not support conventional wisdom?

The answer lies with the ideology of those advancing the hypothesis and note that I use hypothesis and not theory for they have failed to scientifically achieve such status. The Left has all but lost its north; it has no goals, no unity of purpose and no agenda besides attacking and trying to destroy capitalism. Global warming provides the perfect excuse to carry on with it. It is the new card to be trumped against the establishment; it is the new way to shame the corporate world but more tellingly it is the vehicle that allows the furtherance of racism at its most primary. Radicals on this camp have gone as far as sending death threats to scientists that have spoken up against the swindle. Entire populations of developing countries are collectively and happily condemned to a life time of misery by these advocates of the end of the world.

The UN created a panel (IPCC) whose conclusions are held as the ultimate truth about global warming. But the report published fails to demonstrate the case and uses semi scientific jargon presumably to con the public. Created in a way so as to make the case with words rather than with sound and credible scientific evidence the report goes on to stress upon the "likeliness" of the hypothesis it seeks to demonstrate or the "confidence" with which bureaucrats on UN's payroll believe in their hypothesis. Again any serious scientist would laugh at such irresponsible and altogether useless way to describe a scientific phenomenon.

Channel 4 News broadcast an aptly titled documentary yesterday "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It is a thought provoking, thorough investigation into the movement and reasons behind the whole scam based, unlike those on the other side of the equation, on rigorous scientific evidence. I was very pleased to see an influential TV network take on the hysterical global warming crowd and disprove their allegations. Further I learned about the origins of the new creed, traced back to the one person the entire environmentalist community despise with a passion, Margaret Thatcher. What an extraordinary revelation for not even this most trendy and fashionable cause of the world's resentful imbeciles is of their making.


Anonymous said...

Alex, can you prove that global warming is not man made? The fact that CO2 levels and the earth have been significantly warming in the past does not prove that humans are not contributing to global warming or climate change if you prefer.

Are there a lot of hype and ignorant people talking about global warming as if they know what they are talking about and doom sayers predicting the earth is coming to an end? Yes, but ignoring them, the science still shows CO2 levels increasing during the pas 3/4 million years (although this I agree is a very short on the geological time scale). But the question remains, why the sudden increase in CO2 and global temperatures? it seems to correlate well with human activity which is what the most of the scientific community is saying. Does this prove humans are the cause? No, but there is a correlation and ignoring this is stupid.

As for the report you cite it is for pubic policy makers (not scientists) so the scientific jargon has been sucked out of it. As for your issues with words like "likeliness" and "likelihood" this is standard in scientific writing. I can not think of a paper that writes "proves" or "disproves" or makes any strong conclusions. If you use these strong words in your research or papers it would immediately draw skepticism.

Just remember both the left and the right are using science for their own political goals (however disgusting I find it). But then again most issues eventually become political, sadly. Have we not seen this with Chavez and Venezuela?

As I said in Miguel's blog capitalism and free markets do not mean environmental destruction. On the contrary, it is capitalism and free markets that can bring about environmental protection, here in lies the silent majority of people.

AB said...

Alex, can you prove that global warming is not man made?

Actually yes.

Does this prove humans are the cause? No, but there is a correlation and ignoring this is stupid.

Can you back up your assertion -with credible scientific data pls- that there's a correlation Kensey?

Kensey, I'm not going to go down the road of convincing you of anything; I'm a geologist you aren't, I know what I'm talking about you don't, available scientific evidence proves my point not yours, so I guess there's not much to debate really. Understand that your choice of believing one side of the argument instead of the other does not global-warming-is-man-made make.

TWR said...

I would not expect such a juvenile response from someone who usually writes with such ease and fluidity. Having studied geology for a few years by no means makes you a definitive expert on global warming, and ignoring the obvious signs of what is happening is simply ignorant. You make the same arguments that Bush and his neocon lackeys used to make before they were exposed as oil-company shills whose religious beliefs tell them that 1) Armageddon is nigh, 2)therefore we should just use and use and use without any regard for the health of the planet, and 3) Jesus will protect us from all of it.

Yeah, yeah Alek, I know you hate "Leftists", but just because someone has informed, educated beliefs that happen to be progressive does not make them some hippie with a Che Guevara t-shirt who openly supports Chavez and Castro. I find it infuriating that someone who has done so much good by trying to expose what Chavez is doing to that beautiful country cannot engage in productive and coherent discourse about a threat to all life on the planet. This makes Chavez look like an insignificant clown.

Looking forward to your return to your prosaic and informed style of writing...

AB said...

Well I must admit that this post has certainly infuriated some people, and as you should know by now I'm not one who shies from debate.

First off I never said I was an expert in global warming, neither have I ever denied that the earth is indeed warming. Why? Because as someone who did study geology I know that climate if not a fixed but a variable, as I have stated, the geological record contains many examples of warming/cooling periods.

What I have said, and maintain until I see credible evidence to that effect, is that the argument that the present warming trend being man made is not supported by scientific evidence. Very simple. Now you can try and undermine my point by drawing parallelisms with the neocons -though you should know by now that I don't belong in that sack- and call me an adolescent all you want, however that is not going to change the indisputable fact that the global-warming-is-man-made hypothesis is bullshit.

Educated beliefs count for nothing in my book for the same reason that I don't buy into the hysterical global warming crap: I read geology, which means that I have an understanding on how the earth was formed and how has evolved into today's status, read I don't believe in god, Jesus' protection, Armageddon, Adam and Eve or any such crap either. I rather deal with data, facts, findings, evidence, etc. I'll leave the factually uninformed "beliefs" to others.

Chavez is indeed an insignificant clown compared to all this, not by chance we see now uber liar Eva Golinger pushing the argument that Chavez is the earth's most environmentally friendly president, somehow they sense there's political capital to be gained in all this.

As stated elsewhere I'm all up for energy conservation, what I absolutely despise is the prostitution of global warming by the left to punish us all.

Anonymous said...

Here are three (I don't have time to do an extensive seach) I'm busy with my own papers.




Alex, no scientist can prove global warming is not caused (100%) by humans, by the same token they can not prove 100% that humans are causing it.

If you have peer reviewed papers that can "prove" humans are not contributing to global warming I would like to read them.

There is a clear distinction between leftists who use the global warming issue for their own anti-capitalist USA campaign and scientits. You nor I can help that but the research suggests humans are contributing to global warming, how much? and what might be the consequences? is up for debate.

AB said...

Kensey, as stated earlier you will not convince me of anything, specially when you send links to papers which support their contentions on the "growing consensus" held by IPCC members. There's not such thing as consensus in science, there was consensus once upon a time that the earth was flat... I suggest you see the documentary and take a walk down to the earth's science dept. in your university, and on the way ask yourself this question: how come the earth has had many cooling/warming periods even when man was not around?

Anonymous said...

Alex, I'm not trying to convince you either I'm simply challenging your argument.

I did visit the department of atmospheric sciences and they seem pretty convinced that climate change is occurring and humans are playing a significant role:

As for geology department they don't specialize in this field (they are geologists they study rocks and minerals and sediments) but do work closely with the atmospheric science department.

As for your issue with "growing consensus" that is proper terminology in scientific writing, so I don't know what to tell you. The IPCC is composed of ~1000 scientists and the final paper was peer reviewed by all.

Again if you have a peer reviewed paper or know of a lab that can prove humans are not contributing to climate change I would be happy to read it.

AB said...

Kensey, let us be rational here for a sec: as you rightly noted geology is the study of rocks, minerals, sediments, etc. From where do you think the evidence that the earth keeps cooling and warming springs, from atmospheric science departments? Perhaps from air samples that date back hundreds of thousands of years?

So around ~ 1000 scientists believe that this warming is man made: how about the more than "~ 1000" that do not share the "growing consensus" held by the advocates of the end of the world?

To conclude Kensey, you are not challenging my argument for there is no argument: there is no conclusive and credible scientific evidence that global warming is man made.

Over and out.

Sire said...

Alek, yes, there is no conclusive and credible scientific evidence that global warming is man made.

However, there is neither any conclusive credible scientific evidence that global warming is *not* man made.

In case you don't agree, I am still waiting for you to post peer reviewed papers that can prove humans are not contributing to climate change.

Google Scholar did not help me further either: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22aleksander+boyd%22&btnG=Search

Unknown said...

Oh boy, where do I begin. Um..., well, yeah, the evidence does come from atmospheric samples, as the ones antarctic ice cores, which do date back thousands of years. They also contain the evidence of temperature change because the ratio of isotopes in the atmosphere changes with temperature.

So while you are right that the temperature has changed quite dramatically over earth's history there is a definite correlation between CO2 and the temperature rise over the past 50 years or so. Another consideration is if we want the earth to warm up or not, which isn't as easy to answer as one might think.

As far as the scientists that don't believe the "consensus": they don't publish peer reviewed papers about it. There's no conspiracy, your view is just not supported by real science, the ones publishing in peer reviewed journals, which is what scientists usually do in fields that aren't as politically charged as this one.

In the end it comes down to risk management. In that field you don't need 100% proof; if it's plausible you start making provisions for when you know so that you don't get caught with your pants down. The only ones needing 100% proof are politicians who don't want to face the music.

In my opinion there is enough evidence to start making some changes because the IF these scientists are right we're doing the greatest science experiment ever with the only planet we've got. Are you willing to do that just to prove you are right?

AB said...

Alek, yes, there is no conclusive and credible scientific evidence that global warming is man made.

Then why are we having this discussion?

However, there is neither any conclusive credible scientific evidence that global warming is *not* man made.

Wrong again, there is, with the assistance of the earth's geological record it can easily be proven that global warming is not man made for the planet has undergone perdios of cooling and warming when man was not around, ergo when the causes attributed to man can under no circumstance be factored in.

As of my posting peer reviewed papers I don't have to, read any geology book, that'll do, and in case you miss intentionally my clarification I never said I was a global warming expert nor did I say that I had published papers in that field, therefore no need to try and embarrass me with google scholar.

Where do I begin...

Antarctic ice cores containing evidence of temperature change dating back thousands of years... See you have missed one crucial point: thousands of years you have said, evidence of temperature change, was man pumping CO2 back then? On your bike...

Listen folks I have no desire to continue with this futile debate, you won't convince me of anything nor will you prove that you're right and I am wrong. The earth is warming, that much we all agree with. Science is yet to provide definite evidence that this particular warming period is man made. Radical groups across the world are using this to continue their relentless attack on industry, progress and the establishment. Sadly they seem to be succeeding. What that means in real terms, for instance, is more taxes to be levied across the board. Here in Britain the leftist establishment is trying to almost criminalize travel. Proposals from all parties, even the conservatives, suggest that our ability to live the way we live will be forcefully modified by new legislation, even though the case continues to be pretty much in the air scientifically speaking. I don't know about you, frankly I don't care, but to me this reminisces of chavismo: i.e. no debate, total disregard for science, defamation of foes, unilateral imposition of legislation that will impact greatly our lives, politicos fearful of speaking against dreading backlash at the polls...

It sucks. I can't bear the amount of bullshit being thrown around by people that know nothing about the climate and how it has behaved in the past. The UK is to pass legislation setting CO2-emission reduction targets for 2050, by then these have to be reduced by 60%. The laughable aspect of it is that UK reduction in emissions may or may not have an impact in world's climate. India, China, LatAm, Africa will continue doing what they have to do to develop. But if the UK fails to meet the target -as it already has with previously imposed ones- it can offset its "legally binding" responsibility by trading -read buying- up to 50% of its originally suggested target in carbon emission quotas from other countries. Then how will those responsible for failing the target be taken into account? From the moment the legislation is passed till 2050 surely many environmental ministers will have taken a shot at controlling emissions, which one of them will be made responsible and how in 2050?

Developing countries should give industrialised nations the finger, and I as a citizen of a third world country certainly am in complete disagreement with this crap, which seeks to curtail development, i.e. let's keep the boys club as is, let politicians of industrialised nations dictate when, how, in what form are other countries to lift its populations from poverty.

Byrd Family said...

I find it extremely hard to listen to, or believe anyone who has absolute disregard of the Earth's geological history. The absolute ignorance by man-made-global-warming believers in thinking they are "just taking care of the earth", or "why not do something just in case" and not even seeing the political agenda that is behind all of this is nonsense.

Look... if man is warming up the planet then it should be easy to fix by simply doing what man did in Earth's past history to correct the many times the Earth has warmed and cooled. Oh yea, man wasn't around and the earth heated up, cooled, species evolved, died out, etc.

And most importantly... if we are in such danger why would not every single country be told to reduce Co2 output instead of offering credits so you can emit all you want. Giving money to poor/corrupt countries will only help the wealthy people in control of those countries.

Anyways... I'm not an expert, just my comments on the nonsense.