Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Behind the Global Warming Hoax

All right, to take on the whole megillah at once (note that all the facts mentioned herein are readily available on the internet):

I first heard the Global Warming theory some 20 years ago, and it didn't make sense then.  The story was that evil-evil American Industry -- and cars, and exhaling -- put a lot of carbon dioxide (CO2, for those of you who skipped Chemistry in junior high school, high school and college) into the atmosphere, and the CO2 reflects heat/sunlight back at the Earth, thus heating up the atmosphere.  Now I recalled from my grade-school science class that animals -- including humans -- inhale oxygen and exhale CO2, while plants inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen, and this nice exchange has been going on for about two billion years.  I also knew, from friends who worked in the business, that commercial greenhouses often pump in CO2 to make the plants grow faster.  So why, I pondered, wouldn't all the plants in the world happily inhale that extra CO2 and grow faster?

I was also not impressed by the evidence.  According to the "climatologists" (a science I'd never heard of before), Earth's weather has been warming up for centuries.  Well, a bit of research will show that Earth's weather has been warming up since the end of the Ice Age, which is why the Ice Age ended.  In fact, according to paleontologists (a real science, of respectable age and discoveries), there have been at least six ice ages, at regular intervals over the past few million years.  Before that, Earth's climate still varied wildly. There was a time when there was almost no ice anywhere on Earth, and giant amphibians swam in the lakes of Antarctica.  There was another time when all of Earth's surface was covered with ice, and life survived only around volcanic vents in the ocean depths.  Earth is a dynamic planet, still evolving, and its climate is the result of complex interactions between its own plate tectonics and the likewise complex cycles of the weather of the sun.  For proof, note that during the same years when, the alarmists claim, Earth's general temperature has been rising, the ice-caps have been melting on Mars -- and the temperatures on Titan and Pluto have risen two and one degrees centigrade, respectively.  I don't think we have any industry or cars on Mars, Titan and Pluto.

And there's more.  Most of the temperature readings that the Global Warming crowd claims as evidence were taken by volunteers, with donated recorders.  Most of these volunteers, like most humans, live in cities -- and didn't go far from home to plant their recorders.  Cities are notorious heat-generators, besides being a bit short on plant life, and there was a notable shortage of recordings taken in rural or wilderness areas.  This is a guarantee for skewed data.  On the other hand, temperature recorders planted by actual scientist teams -- which were duly placed at equally-distant points all over the planet -- show that the temperature of Earth's climate has not changed in the last 16 years.  There's also solid evidence (again, collected by scientists, not volunteers) for "Dimming the Sun" -- from the PBS documentary of the same name (available on YouTube).  This holds that air pollution, particularly soot, blocks sunlight from reaching Earth's surface to a significant degree -- enough to slow water evaporation in lands as distant, and different, as northern New York and eastern Australia.

Then there's the fact that the steady rise of Earth's general temperature since the Ice Age has not been a smooth climb, but a rhythmic fluctuation.  There was the cold period that helped bring down the Roman Empire, followed by the Early Medieval Warm Period -- when Vikings raised dairy cattle in Greenland, vineyards grew in England, and freshwater crocodiles frolicked in the rivers of France (thus adding to the legend of dragons) -- which was followed by the Little Ice Age of the later Middle Ages, and so on up to the present day. There was no evil-evil modern industry during the early Middle Ages.  The recent melting of a glacier in Austria revealed artifacts (like broken spear-points, worn-out sandals and ancient fireplaces) that proved the ground had been ice-free and inhabited by humans just 3000 years ago.   Finally, I can tell you from personal observation, that here in Arizona the last five winters have each been colder and wetter than the last. 

None of these Inconvenient Truths jibe with the Global Warming theory, which just might explain why the Global Warming pundits have begun referring to "Climate Change" instead.

The question is, why has this shaky and contra-indicated theory become so popular?

Well, it's been pushed and pimped by expert flak-artists.  Never mind Al Gore (whose personal "carbon footprint" is greater than that of any four average American households) and his movie;  why didn't the Nobel Prize committee, whose job includes checking out the actual science of any science project submitted to them, check out the facts before handing him the prize?  Why did other respectable scientists, as revealed in their own emails, make a point of muzzling and denigrating other scientists who presented solid evidence contradicting the Global Warming theory? 

Well, for one thing, there's been an awful lot of grant money handed out, over the past 20 years and more, for studies on Global Warming -- and almost none for studies on possible returns of the Ice Age, or very-long-term patterns of Earth's weather.  Where has all that slightly-biased money come from?  It's impossible to track it all down, but one might consider that about 20 years ago certain Asian interests tried to push the US and several other western industrial countries into signing the Kyoto Accords.  The US refused, because after examining the Accords political analysts realized that following them would effectively strip the US of its manufacturing capacity.

There are two good reasons why countries like China, India, and especially Japan, would like to make the US and its western allies give up on manufacturing.  First, simple competition: China and India would love to become the new industrial giants of the world, and Japan assumes it already is.  All that stands in the way of their total economic domination is their pesky western rivals.

The second reason is that the Asian countries, and particularly Japan, remember that what allowed the US to win World War Two was its uninterrupted industrial capacity.  At the height of the war, the US was churning out better than two navy ships, ten tanks, twenty artillery pieces, 500 combat rifles and 1000 rounds of ammunition per day -- not to mention other troop supplies.  The Axis countries, regardless of their troop numbers, couldn't match that.

The Asian industrial countries are primarily concerned with their own agendas, and are not necessarily friends of ours;  they know full well, from their own histories, that economic rivalry often leads to war.  How could they disarm their foremost rival in advance?  Well, how better than by playing on our current concern with environmental damage and reliable Liberal Guilt?  Add to that their decades-long policy of inviting western industries to move their plants, whole-cloth, to -- yes -- China, India, Japan, and other Asian countries under their influence, with promises of business-friendly governments and lots of nice cheap labor, and the result is a lot of western mines and mills -- especially mills -- standing idle.

The real irony here is that China, with India not too far behind, is the worst air and water polluter in the world right now.  Air pollution from China is massive enough to drift across the entire Pacific, to register on pollution-counters in California.  And never mind what they dump into their water!  Our Asian trade-partners aren't really that concerned with environmental quality, even on their own land.    

Could America today -- with more than twice the population we had then -- mount an industrial and military effort as great as we did in World War Two?  The issue is in doubt.  Among other things, our attitudes -- or at least our politicians' attitudes -- about precisely how to win a war are very different from what they were then, as our military performance over the last 15 years displays.  Our attitudes toward industry and manufacturing are different too.

We could always regain that capacity, cut drastically into our unemployment figures and repair our sagging economy just by changing those attitudes, but the Global Warming-- ooops, "Climate Change" -- theory won't be any help there.

--Leslie <;)))>< Fish                    


Anonymous said...

Well said! I've been suspicious of this nonsense from the moment I heard of it, if only because a lot of the loudest proponents are people whom I wouldn't trust to tell me the truth if I asked them if a dollar has 100 cents in it.

Leslie Fish said...

Hi, Raven. Yes, I've noticed that the Global Warming seem more motivated by passion than by facts. That raises red flags by itself.

--Leslie <;)))>< )O(