More debunking global warming myths

More debunking global warming myths

After yesterday's post on the global warming hoax via a UN "scientific" report there comes word of a British TV documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle."

It exposes the constantly repeated lies that there is a scientific consensus on global climate change, that CO2 drives the climate, and that the current warming trend--if there is one-- is unique in history.

The film starts off covering indisputable facts. There was a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today -- that led to incredible wealth in Europe when the bulk of the continent's great cathedrals were built and when Britain had thriving vineyards. Then came the Little Ice Age that started in the 17th century and was so cold London's Thames River would freeze so solidly festivals were held on it.

About 10,000 years ago, during a time known as the Holocene Maximum, it was much warmer even than the Medieval times.

Sound familiar? The scientists in the show also note that volcanoes produce more CO2 every year than all human activity put together. In other words, if you removed humans from the equation all together--which you can't short of a global genocide--it would still have no effect on the climate.

Not all change is bad

Another part of the lie is that the effects of change are universally bad. In fact, if northern climates warm, it means larger agricultural zones and longer growing seasons for more food, less need for heating oil so less fuel emissions, larger habitable areas for pressured and endangered animals. But what about those cold-weather loving animals, like polar bears. Remember the Holocene Maximum? They survived that too.

Plant and animal species were being found and dying off long before the first internal combustion engine was built and while human activity might be responsible for localized population pressures, human-caused global warming is not part of it.

What we have is an ideology built on a lie and pushed and prodded onto the public regardless of fact and evidence. The question is: Who benefits from hobbling the economic power of First World nations like the US and the European Union? Who benefits from economic drags like the Kyoto Protocol? Who are in fact the biggest polluters in the world?

Technorati Tags:, ,

Share:FacebookX
4 comments
  • Dear Dom,

    My Climatology prof discussed all these points.

    Also, Germany has balked at her Kyoto Protocol agreements.  I’m starting to think the US was wise not to ratify/sign that thing because we probably would never have met the goals.

  • I live in the far North, and people here snort at the arguments you list above saying global warming could be good.

    A few quick points:

    The warm weather is causing the permafrost in our soil to melt. Sounds good? It’s not. The ground heaves, causing roads and homes and schools to be destroyed.

    Warmer weather means we can’t build ice roads in the winter over the lakes and permafrost. Many communities here have no permanent roads, and get everything shipped to them by plane or ice road. You try flying in a new bed or coach—or your community’s entire supply of fuel for a year. It costs a fortune and makes these things way too expensive for the average Aboriginal person here.

    The lack of cold weather endangers more than polar bears. It also affects caribou and seals. Those two animals still feed people here—they are staple foods the same way bread and milk and butter are staples elsewhere. The caribou stocks are down 75 per cent in the last two years. Beef is too expensive to fly into many communities, so that means alot of hungry people. Why the drop in caribou? Many things, but two biggies: the ice on the Arctic Ocean gets thin early, and they fall in and drown during migration. And when you have thaws and freezes instead of steady cold, a layer of ice covers the ground vegetation instead of a layer of snow. That means the caribou can’t get to their food source, and they starve.

    Instead of believing one documentary (that was funded, by the way, by oil giant BP and is therefore completely suspect), I respectfully suggest you do some better research. I am a journalist here in the North and let me tell you, global warming is no hoax nor is it good for Northern people and animals.

    God bless you and my regards to your lovely family.

  • It’s probably no picnic for the folks who live near the equator either. No one claimed that it’s a universal good, but then since the vast majority of people in the world live in temperate zones, that’s where the most benefit will be felt.

    The fact is that this is happening whether you want it to or not. It’s not that the climate is not changing at all necessarily, but whether it’s caused by human actions.

    The other post I wrote links to evidence that much of the “20th century First World nations caused global warming” claims are bogus based on fraudulent science and willful blindness.

    If the Earth’s climate changes, what should people do who live in places that become uninhabitable? I think it’s fairly obvious.

    Like I said, there are two questions here: Is the climate warming? Is it caused by human action? I think the evidence is clear on the latter.

  • Where did the opinion come that oil companies are akin to terrorists groups?  Are oil companies not supposed to use scientists?
      Is there any proof BP funded this anyway?  Many scientists are funded by environmental groups that depend on alarmism for bigger donations. Scientists funded by the government also have motivations to show alarming climate change to show keep their funding.  In other words, everyone has a reason to smudge the evidence.  That is why it is good to look at the evidence instead of personally attacking the sponsor. A previous poster used personal attack and anecdotal evidence to refute a film which I don’t think he’s ever seen. Not persuasive.

Archives

Categories