Global Warming?... I Think Not

on Sunday, June 10, 2007

As promised. Here’s the latest rant and rave that I promised would be here before the weekend was over. Enjoy!

I turned on the TV tonight and saw a home design show called ‘Red Hot and Green’ so I decided to write something on this whole global warming fad. And I call it a ‘fad’ for a reason.

First of all, let me preface all of this by saying that there simply isn’t enough data and scientific reports vary so greatly that a person cannot prove whether human-caused global warming truly exists or doesn't. Having said that, here’s what I personally feel about the whole issue:

I’m tired of all the attention global warming is getting. While it’s true that most scientists agree that the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since the year 1850, global satellite data (the most reliable of all climate measurements by the way) shows no evidence of any warming in the last 18 years. In fact, both records and scientific data show that the earth experienced a greater surface temperature between the 10th and 15th centuries, back when there were no cars. The earth’s temperature fluctuates. Does anyone think that God made a mistake in his creation of the earth and that He screwed up so bad that all his creations will now die? Anybody who entertains the very thought is blasphemous.

Many of the liberal freaks out there argue that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased around 30% since 1850. Weak argument. While this is half true, the other half (the part you never hear Al Gore mention) is that almost all of this increase occurred before the 1940’s when there were many less cars on the road (and when there were many rumors floating around of global COOLING).

Al Gore’s video about global warming is full of lies and fallacies. I have decided not to spend time on this seeing as there has already been a movie made debunking it called “A Convenient Fiction” which you can watch here for free: (click ‘Watch the Movie’ on right)

Let’s see if Al Gore is qualified to be the world’s spokesman on consumption of fossil fuels and harmful emissions: Mr. Gore tours the country to promote his movie and possible presidential campaign. What you don’t know is that he does this in a private jet. He burns through thousands of gallons of jet fuel without batting an eye. In fact, it would take me 57.6 years of driving Cari’s SUV to burn what Al Gore burns in one week. He owns at least 3 lavish homes averaging close to 10,000 sq ft each. These 3 homes combined use 13x the amount of energy that you and I use to power and heat our homes. What a hypocrite! If he is so concerned about consumption, maybe he should start eating less. The man has gained like 85 pounds in the last year alone.

This year was green year at the Emmy Awards. Lisa Ling, who was reporting at the yearly event, reported that the stars were all arriving in their Toyata Priuses… yea right. I watched the award show. Here’s what I saw: Gas-guzzling limos: 23, Priuses: 0. Hollywood only backs the idea of global warming because doing so is considered to be hip, cool, and fashionable. And even if some of them did show up in a Prius, is it really that green of a car? The Toyota Prius is a larger contributor of greenhouse gases than a Hummer (the Prius' arch nemesis). Check out some of these less-known facts:

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. If a Prius is driven 100,000 miles it will cost $3.25 per mile. A Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road for 300,000 miles. (Some say that this fact is fiction and that the comparisons used in this study are misleading, but the fact stated above is true.) That means the Hummer that is on the road three times longer than a Prius will use less combined energy doing it. Wait, I thought this car was supposed to be green...

Also, most scientists agree that global warming is not caused by so-called human produced greenhouse gases. In fact, a Gallup poll found that about 40 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society either believe that global warming doesn't exist or that they can't definitively agree with the idea that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

Lately, I have also seen the liberal media show numerous pictures of glaciers shrinking, but you never see the liberal media showcase the ones that are actually expanding:

If you're looking for even more detailed scientific evidence that global warming is a fad, check this out:

The above link will take you to a petition started by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (in other words, a bunch of really, really smart doctors). Since its debut, the petition has gained over 17,000 signatures, mostly that of PhDs and MDs, stating that human-caused global warming DOESN'T EXIST! They have even put together a 34-page, scientific abstract detailing why they have taken that position. Now let me repeat, these are doctors! People who have advanced degrees in physics, chemistry, medicine, meteorology, geology, etc. Now who are you gonna believe? 17,000 doctors?.. or Al Gore - the man who once claimed he invented the internet


Anonymous said...


Great Blog...

I don't really know/keep up on politics that much, but appreciate all of the info you provide. Keep up the great work!

Anonymous said...

The CNW article you quote on the Prius is junk science:

The article about the Prius and nickel mining in Canada has been retracted:

Regarding the Gallup poll the proves the majority of scientists dispute Global Warming:

"the Gallup poll found that a
substantial majority of the
scientists polled, 66 percent,
believed that human-induced global
warming was already occurring. Only
10 percent disagreed, and the
remainder were undecided."

I could go on and on. Basically, your article is top to bottom propaganda, with no good faith or respect for the intelligence of your audience at all. Just because you want it to be true, doesn't mean it is. An honest man checks his facts and questions his own beliefs before he espouses them so vehemently.

Mike said...

wow, you try to debunk one single part of my posting and all of a sudden the entire posting is propaganda?? why won't you admit that Al Gore's movie is entirely propaganda?.. and you say MY argument is weak. you argue that you could go on and on, well why didn't you? are you going to prove that Al Gore doesn't fly around in a private jet? will you admit that he doesn't own at least three energy-sucking homes? do you contest the fact that hundreds of glaciers worldwide are growing? are you going to say that the Oregon petition doesn't exist? in fact, you don't even reference the other 90% of the my posting and don't even include your name (anonymous). by the way, some of your links are the rebuttals of one single person and the Prius article wasn't entirely recanted, just one part was clarified (but I have removed that section anyway).

look, if you have something meaningful to say, then say it. but if not, don't pepper my blog with weak arguments and personal attacks. you don't know me and you know nothing about me, so don't dare impugn my integrity or call me 'dishonest'

Justin said...

First off, Al Gore never claimed to have "invented the Internet" (read this) and the fact that you repeat that right-wing smear basically shoots your credibility to zero. But, that's beside the point.

Is this a joke?

In your entire "rant" against global warming, (which appears to be mostly a rant against Al Gore) you really only get to the issue in the last 2 paragraphs of the article. You preface your global warming argument earlier with the statement that "there simply isn't enough data and scientific reports vary so greatly that a person cannot prove whether global warming truly exists or doesn't." That's an opinion not based on the current body of scientific literature.

I don't see any citations backing up anything that you state here. Please, if you're going to write on scientific topics, provide some credible references to papers, studies, or articles. Your own opinion or your beliefs about your god's creative intentions don't count for anything in science.

The links that you do provide (as has been previously mentioned) are bunk. That Pacific Research Institute site, which produced the "A Convenient Fiction" movie is a political think-tank. Despite their science-sounding name, it's not a climatological or meteorological research organization. They also appear to get a lot of money from Exxon-Mobile which impugns their credibility on the whole carbon dioxide question.

Your "list of expanding glaciers" link is a joke which also fails to cite any credible evidence. How about looking at the pictures and graph in this article by the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder which shows the global glacial mass from 1960 to 2002 (hint: it's not increasing). Browse around that site. They work for organizations like NASA and NOAA, you know, real scientists.

Your last link, to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition, also has no credibility. That organization claims to have exactly 6 members and mostly does work on the fringes of mainstream science. The petition was circulated in 1999. For something more current, try reading any of the reports put out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Their material has been reviewed by thousands of scientists in dozens of countries. I would particularly recommend taking a look at this chapter Understanding and Attributing Climate Change from the 2007 report.

Do yourself a favor and conduct a little basic research before you speak out on scientific topics in the future. Try to find some sources other than right-wing talk-show hosts and newsletters you get in your email inbox. After reading this article, I do agree with one thing in the title. You do appear to "think not".

Mike said...

Wow, where to begin…

Do YOURSELF a favor and actually READ my blog next time before you attempt to blast it so fervidly.

To start, the part about Al Gore inventing the internet is facetious. Secondly, the fact that scientific data is all over the map making it difficult to ‘prove’ the global warming theory is true – and thousands of scientists worldwide who can’t agree that global warming exists can attest to that; You people seem to think that every single scientist in the world backs your theory. Wrong.

Also, I only bring up Al Gore in this article several times simply to point out his hypocrisy in the matter. (Did you even READ this posting?)

As I mentioned earlier, you clearly have never read this blog before – I mention in many of my posts (and it’s a well-known fact to my loyal readers) that I prefer NOT to clutter my postings with random sources, but I also clearly and honestly state that I will forward those sources to any of my readers who request them… But you missed that, didn’t you, because you read my blog for 2 seconds before you attempted to affront my personal opinion – But I forgot that YOU are the only one allowed to have an opinion on the matter, right?..

Also, where in this posting did I say that this was 100% scientific… uh, nowhere! So I can bring up God as I please. Do you disagree? According to you, I bring up God once and all of a sudden this entire article isn’t scientific, regardless of the fact that I bring up numerous scientific points. Fallacy.

You attack “A Convenient Fiction” calling it a production from a ‘political think-tank.’ (By the way, did I ever say this movie was produced by a meteorological company with a scientific sounding name? – Folks, here’s another example of the typical logical fallacy of distraction.) Right, as if Al Gore’s movie sooo credible… Gore’s movie is full of numerous lies and exaggerated facts, and I’m hardly the only one calling attention to it.

Also, you obviously didn’t even look at the expanding glaciers link. You call it a joke only because you want it to be one. You also say that it fails to cite credible evidence. Next time try reading some the links as they detail the numerous worldwide scientific organizations and liberal media fronts (including your not-so-conservative BBC) that back the facts and also provide many time-stamped photographs of growing glaciers.

Finally, I find it amusing to hear you say that almost 20,000 field-specific doctors have ‘no credibility.’ But oops, I forgot that both people like yourself, as well as Al Gore, are smarter than all these individuals combined. By the way, I have recently spoken with many of the doctors on this list, and they all tell me that they haven’t changed their opinion.

To sum up, (cue bugs bunny voice: He don’t know me vewy well, do he?) not once have I ever quoted a right-wing talk show host, and the only e-mails I receive are from my wife and bank – everything else makes it to the spam folder, which makes you a presumptuous individual who jumps to conclusions too quickly (thereby leading me to question any sources you may have cited in such an eager and premature manner).

All you’ve done is say, “Mike, you quote all these sources… But here are a bunch of MY sources that are opposite of yours so I must be right!” Well, all you’ve mannered to do is prove my point that scientific data is all over the map – something you first criticized me for. Thanks for your help!

Justin said...

Show me any scientific article which supports your ideas that there is no consensus on global warming. Really. I would like to see a recent (2000 or later) peer-reviewed paper authored by someone with credentials in this field, published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.

That's all I need to see. Just one.

Mike said...

Let me see if I understand you, Justin. (I'm sincerely asking here...) Do you really believe that there isn't a single field-specific scientist in the entire world that questions the theory that humans are causing global warming?.. And unless I provide a link, you will continue to believe that there is a 100% consensus among scientists?