Man-Made Global Warming

Here we go again… Right? I thought the debate was over, too, but it just keeps coming back, and coming back… and coming back. You get the idea. It’s evident that the argument for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is here to stay. Heck, ever since Al Gore’s now infamous “documentary,” An Inconvenient Truth (irony), the war on warming has been all the rage. But that, of course, was not the beginning.

No, not by a long shot. Politicians have been trying to politicize weather patterns and climate change for many decades. In fact, they’ve been going back and forth about whether we’re melting or freezing to death. They just haven’t clung to something for as long as they have with global warming (which has turned into climate change, due to recent trends of cooling, rather than warming – again).

Let’s begin by taking a look at political climate change history. How about we start with 1871, which happens to be the IPCC’s premium year for perfect weather conditions:

Even back in 1871, climate change was a hot topic. Of course, at that time, the skeptics/deniers were seen as the intellects, whereas today, the believers/propagandists are seen as the intellects. Here is an article, where the Brisbane Courier (a newspaper) suggests that 3yrs of consecutive drought has caused a stirring in the weather prophets of the day. These half-baked meteorologists and propagandists were warning of escalating temperatures, and with every telling, the stories got worse. Like today, they were reporting of the “highest temps on record” or “coldest day ever,” or wettest, driest, etc. Very much like today, where our intellects report that hotter temps = global warming, unless it’s cold… which, of course, equates to more global warming. “More snow this winter? Oh, that’s global warming.” “Is it hot this Summer? Well, global warming is to blame!”

Using 1871 as a starting point for greatness and how it used to be, before man caused the oceans to rise is pure fiction. Not only have the oceans not risen, but the temperatures of the day weren’t as “cool” as the IPCC would have you believe. In fact, the climate was so unyielding in North America, that the United States bore witness to one of the most deadly fires this country has ever seen – The Great Peshtigo Fire of 1871. The cause? Extensive periods of very high temperatures and a drought. No… 1871 wasn’t as tame as the IPCC would have you believe.

Nothing’s changed in 143yrs… with exception to who’s considered an intellect.

Fast forward to the late 1950s and 1960s…

The 50s brought more scares of global warming. The temperatures were said to have been rising over the last 100yrs and we were warned of rising ocean levels, as a result of the impending doom that will have befallen our precious polar ice caps and glaciers. Sound familiar?

The 50s also brought our first Federal Act protecting the United States from pollution. In 1955, due to the scare of man-made global warming, Congress passed the Air Pollution Control Act. This allowed for the Federal Government to research air pollution, caused by our factories, automobiles, and other products, but kept the States in charge of control/prevention at the source of the pollution. This was the first event, truly politicizing global warming and enacting control over the private industrial sector, and it set the stage for government control through regulation.

It didn’t take long for this simple Act to leap forward into what we now know as the Clean Air Act of 1963, which now allows (through a 1970 amendment) the Federal Government, through the Environmental Protection Agency (also created in 1970), to develop and enforce regulations on industrial complexes responsible for causing pollution hazardous to our health. You hear that? That’s the sound of a man, working on a chain. Ok, maybe not that bad… but we’re getting into Fascist Land (you know, the type of thing Liberals accuse Conservatives of being, all the time). Odd, being that Conservatives are for maximum freedom from government, while living within the confines of a Republic. Adam Smith & Friedrich Hayek are our men… not John Maynard Keynes or Karl Marx.

*shudder*

Ok, now let’s take a look at the 1970s…

In the early 70s, the same global scientific organizations that we see today, were promoting a global cooling scare, when just a few years earlier, they were scaring us with global warming. They literally suggested that if we didn’t change the way we live, over the next several years, we’d be ushering in a new ice age. They were mostly concerned about the thickening of the arctic ice and why the arctic was experiencing more frigid temperatures. There was a concensus (sound familiar?) among the scientific community, that temperatures had been steadily cooling over the previous 20-30 years (depending on who you asked), and that we must prepare for an ensuing ice age, as there was “no end in sight” to the trending cooling temps.

Obviously, you can’t have a good scare without the threat of uncanny storms of biblical proportions. Violent weather, to include unseasonal frosts, large storms, and of course, floods were promised on an international scale.

Just like today, documentaries about the coming ice age were produced, such as the 1977 episodes of “In Search Of…” entitled “The Coming Ice Age,” which ran for 3 episodes (Parts 1-3).

It was so bad that one Scientist predicted that 1 billion people could die, as a result of the oncoming ice age. That oncoming ice age, according to another NASA scientist would only take between 50-60 years to get here. Talk about scare tactics. Not only would the new ice age arrive relatively quickly (especially in geological terms), but a billion of us will most certainly die off.

How were we to combat such threats of an ice age, storms and death? Cut back on pollution, obviously. This was a problem of man, for which can only be solved by addressing man’s problems. The big problems of the day were again, CO2, but also aerosols. You know… the stuff that was in hairspray. These things needed to go!

Well, we already discussed this… The Clean Air Act of 1963 was amended in 1970 and again in 1977. Each amendment gave the Federal Government more control over the private industry and how we do business and innovate.

Now let’s make a small jump to the 1980s/90s!

I remember this one well, because I was in elementary school when the Acid Rain scare was at its peak. Yes… global warming was again occurring, and this time it brought acid rain! Of course, at that time, I could only envision drops of actual acid raining down upon the Earth, burning/melting everything it touched. I had a vivid imagination. However, my imagination wasn’t too far off from the climate obfuscators and alarmists of the time. Were it up to them, we’d have boiling oceans and mass forest die-off. Once again, there was a “consensus” among climate scientists.

Acid Rain – another scam for another time for more politicians to aid in more acquisition of control of the private sector. Yes… another scam, perpetuated by the same people that is perpetuating the current climate crisis. What was the suggested goal to fight Acid Rain? Reduce SO2 & NOx emmissions to increase pH of rain. Ok, that’s great… but that really had no effect on rain and it doesn’t excuse the fact that the government and scientists lied about their studies/findings. PH was already increasing without our aid and so-called “pollutants” were naturally being depleted.

The scare of Acid Rain obviously led to increased governmental controls… through yet, another amendment to the Clean Air Act in 1990.

That brings us to the next century.

In 2003, we witnessed something even the most mentally deficient person would call ridiculous. This was the point where 12 of the most Liberal States in our Union would file suit against the EPA in order to get the Federal Government to recognize CO2 and other naturally occurring “greenhouse gasses,” as pollutants. The EPA had denied their request, prior to the suit, due to the fact that Congress had not given them the authority to regulate CO2 and the other gasses. This was apparently at a time when Congress still mattered and the President didn’t consistently circumvent them to get what he wanted.

It wasn’t until 2007, where the Supreme Court would finally rule that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses were pollutants, which brings us to today’s ridiculous nonsense. Yep… they weren’t climatologists that decided this outcome… they were politicians and Supreme Court Justices – otherwise known as “experts.”

Can you imagine or believe what just happened here? The Supreme Court ruled in favor of dictating that one of the key elements of photosynthesis, CO2 (carbon dioxide), was a pollutant. CO2… required by plants for healthy growth. CO2… used by plants, through photosynthesis, to create O2 (oxygen) and other nutrients.

This is one of the rudimentary lessons of Biological Sciences that children learn, as they’re going through elementary and junior high school. It’s so rudimentary that, at this point, it should be considered common sense that CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, required by photosynthetic organisms to live… and to create a healthy environment for the rest of us.

Since this is a rudimentary lesson of Biological sciences, you’d think that maybe some of these climatologists would understand the necessity of CO2 and would speak up on behalf of those photosynthetic organisms without a voice? No? Wishful thinking? They’re only worried about lumberjacks cutting down trees in a forest? Ahh… got it.

Anyway, you’ll notice that this occurred approximately one year after Al Gore’s infamous documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” was released and the grandiose scheme that is man-made global warming had begun, which brings us to…

Modern-Day Faux Climate Science!!!

I’ve decided to create a list of articles/research on the argument against anthropogenic global warming. Since this is and has been an ongoing and heavy debate since 2006, this list shall be continuously updated until a point is reached where climate alarmists will finally cede to the truth or are engulfed by flames, as punishment for their continuous perpetuation of an obvious facade.

First, a message from John Coleman (meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel):

The IPCC’s and Al Gore’s Hockey Stick Graph:

The infamous hockey stick graph, showing a drastic increase in warming trends over the last century, was devised by Michael Mann, a Climatologist and professor of meteorology at Penn State. It’s no wonder that his hockey stick graph was used to showcase global warming trends, since he was actually the lead author on the IPCC Third Assessment Report in 2001 (where it was first used). It was actually finished with the help of Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona.

It was the IPCC’s report and this graph that increased awareness of man-made global warming, sparking an air of alarmism throughout the world that I don’t believe has ever been seen at this level. It was so simple and convincing that every Tom, Dick and Harry were arguing the importance for decreasing our fossil fuel use, while politicians and lobbyists were attempting to persuade their constituents that more regulations and carbon taxes were needed to offset man’s carbon footprint.

Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately), the graph was found to be a lie, based on convoluted data collection methods. It didn’t take Skeptics very long to point out that the IPCC had used a similar graph in their 1990 report, but this new graph was missing something from the 1990 graph. The entire medieval warm period was written out. With this portion of the graph completely missing, it pushes the narrative that climate had been relatively stable for the last eight centuries, until man came around with its’ pollution-ridden Age of Industrialization. Yes… it was only at this point, where global climate had begun to increase at a rapid rate.

Funny how a little alteration to a graph can change the minds of the easily influenced, huh? If Mann had left the Medieval Warm period in his graph, his graph would tell a completely different story. It would showcase natural, cyclical changes, and in fact, it would demonstrate that the Medieval Warm period was actually quite a lot hotter than it was in the 90s or even now.

It was at this point of realization (about 2001-2002), that two Canadian statasysticians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, started work on their own research, refuting the claims of the IPCC and Mann. They published their findings in 2003 in Energy & Environment Vol. 14, Number 6.

The paper called out Mann for his incorrect data collection methods and in their paper, they issued a new Mann graph, had he used accurate/correct methods for obtaining his data. Stark difference, isn’t it?

And thus, the Mann Hockey Stick Graph had been DEBUNKED

The Science Community’s Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming:

You don’t have to look very hard to find an argument about global warming, containing an often utilized statistic regarding the consensus of climate scientists. The magic number, derived from various scientific organizations, including NASA, is 97%. I couldn’t tell you how many times that number has been brought up in my various arguments with climate alarmists. Whether it’s on Facebook, on Amazon, various articles about global warming/climate change, or even in person… that magic number always seems to surface, as the contributor gloats with glee about it.

Of course that number isn’t true. We’ve known that for some time. The reason why is pretty simple. The organizations perpetuating this myth are speaking on behalf of those they represent. Millions of scientists are members of these organizations, but these organizations are headed by a select few, just like any society/association/corporation/government. Just as the Federal Government has an executive office that hires/appoints trusted people (to the executives) to run various departments, these organizations are run by elected board members, who can drive their organizations in one direction or another. In fact, executive officers of these organizations will not rise to power without the approval of the board. So, where the board goes, so does the organization.

Unfortunately, power and money controls the message. Being a controlling board member of a large organization has many rewards. Power is at the forefront of said rewards. They can re-direct and re-emphasize the goals, policies and mission of the organization. They can control the message of these organizations, and these same organizations are so large that they’re trusted by many more millions of people country/world-wide. It’s a powerful thing to be able to sway public opinion one way or the other, merely due to a changed mission statement in your organization. Many people are sheep to an overwhelming, authoritative figure, and that’s what these places are.

Of course, these places are nothing without money. Sure, they receive funding by member dues, but if you know anything about associations/organizations, you know that that only gets you so far. You either need hefty philanthropic aid or government funding, and what many of these places get is just that… government funding. Of course, not all organizations are equal in the eyes of government. Some take precedence… some, such as those that will tow the company line, like Global Warming. A scientific organization that touts and continues to release “peer-reviewed” studies on the harmful effects of industrialization and CO2 output is more likely to receive government funding from an anti-capitalist/global warming alarmist administration, than a truly grounded-in-science organization that doesn’t tow the line.

The money that goes to these faux scientific studies and organizations of science fiction equates to about $5.6 Billion per year that the American tax payer pays for. $1 million is a lot of money, $10 million is enough to quit your job, move into a dream house and live happily ever after with your family… Billions of dollars is enough to fund many, many more happy endings. Money equates to power and the people in charge of these organizations are all power-hungry.

Well, we’ve gone through the reasoning of why this 97% consensus figure is bunk, but let’s look into the facts behind the fraud. Much more to come…