CityView Magazine

GOOGLE "RECORD HEAT" and you will get 3,180,000 hits. Google "record cold" and you will get 5,110,000. Yes, that’s right; and it’s just the tip of the proverbial (not melting) iceberg. You see, the convenient truth about the theory of global warming is that you can blame anything on it. Record snows and snow cover in North America, record cold in Asia, snow falling in Baghdad. That’s right. Snow in the desert. Clearly more signs of catastrophic global warming. Not so fast. Pull up a chair, put your feet up, expel some evil CO2, and let’s talk about how "settled" the issue of global warming really is.

Patron Saint Gore
I know full well that writing this piece will cause me to be labeled a "global warming denier" and be lumped in with those that Al Gore said in March are, along with Dick Cheney, "in such a tiny minority view now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat." Seriously? I can’t question the people who are incapable of telling me what the weather is going to be for my tee-time this Saturday, but claim to know exactly how much warmer the entire globe will be, how much the sea will rise, how much the snow cover will recede, and how much the ice caps will melt in 100 years? You’re really going to implicitly equate me with a holocaust denier because I don’t believe that your faulty computer models (designed by James Hanson, et al., a liberal NASA scientist with an agenda) prove that the globe is warming, or if it is, that it’s our fault? You swear by the models, why don’t you swear by the corrections that NASA very quietly released last summer that show the warmest year on record was not 1998, but in fact is 1934, and that five of the top 10 hottest years on record were all before World War II?

The Pope once had a problem with a "denier." His name was Galileo, and he thought that the earth was round and that it was not the center of the universe; that it actually revolved around the sun, not the other way around. The Pope did the same thing that Al Gore is doing now. With faulty data and conjecture, the Pope declared that the debate was over and that anybody who disagreed would be burned at the stake. While we don’t burn people at the stake these days, Gore claims we will all die in a ball of fire if we don’t rally around this theory and devote all of our time, energy (both fossil and kinetic), and money to it.

OK, I am a skeptic. When every lunatic liberal leftist on the face of the planet says we need to close down the carbon emissions of industry (carbon caps) and spend trillions of dollars trying to fix something that (1.) we don’t know if we caused it (the factual evidence says we didn’t), and (2.) if we did cause global warming, is it really in our power to fix (reverse) it, red flags go up. Many leading scientists firmly believe that more CO2 in the atmosphere is actually good for the planet. David Archibald, PhD, at the Biology Department of San Diego State University, is one of those leading scientists. In a lecture given at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, Dr. Archibald said that more CO2 in the atmosphere will give us a lusher environment and actually increase plant growth rates in addition to increasing the sustainability of crops in arid regions.

If you believe that liberal bastion of policy wonks and diplomats (and a couple of decent, and many not-so-decent, scientists), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we cannot reverse it. The IPCC closed its Fourth Assessment Report’s (AR4) Summary for Policymakers with this: "[B]oth past and future anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to global warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the time scales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere." For those of you who do not know, the IPCC is more than just Gore’s co-conspirator in the global warming fraud, they are co-recipients of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. And what does climate change have to do with peace anyway?

Back to our favorite global warming alarmist, Al Gore. He recently announced that his Alliance for Climate Protection will embark on a mission to better educate the public on the dangers of man-made global warming and the dire necessity to make drastic (and prohibitively costly) changes in order to stop it. Oh yeah, he’s spending $300 million to do it. Maybe Gore subscribes to Gallop. A recent Gallop poll revealed that about the same percentage of people believe in man-made global warming as did when they first took the poll in 1989. Ironically, the propaganda machine that is Nobel Laureate Gore bans the media from his lectures. An odd contradiction for a man that wants the world to adopt his doomsday outlook and invest in his "green" funds. Gore’s lecture contract, handled by The Harry Walker Agency, Inc., in New York, in addition to requiring non-disclosure of the terms and conditions of the agreement, says in section 9(a) that "the press is not invited or permitted to cover the event unless express written permission is granted by the Harry Walker Agency, Inc." Section 9(c) reads, "Vice President Gore will accept no interview requests." Maybe if he allowed the press into his lectures, or gave an interview or two, he wouldn’t have to spend $300 million on public awareness. In case you are wondering, yes, I have a copy. Are you at least a little bit curious why the free press is not allowed to attend his lectures? Read on, my friend.

GLOBAL WARMING HAS BECOME QUITE THE INDUSTRY.
The U.S. alone spends over $4 billion per year on climate change research. That seems like a lot of money to spend on something that is so well settled and agreed upon by all but a few "flat-earthers." Gore has started giving a disclaimer during his lectures. Gore, and Global Investment Management, LLP (GIM), the London-based private equity firm of which Gore is the founder and Chairman, stand to benefit in untold riches if we invest in the companies he recommends in his lectures. His disclaimers are no different than those of a stock broker or insurance agent. Gore is basically saying, yes, I own stock in these companies, but you should too if you want to save the planet from certain doom. Doom-and-gloom has served Gore well. Like the other two shysters from his administration, he is reported to be worth north of $100 million. If you missed the media’s passing mention last month, Clinton finally released her income tax returns. Turns out she’s worth about $109 million. Civil servants, huh? Servants never had it so good. All the past presidents and vice presidents combined probably don’t have the wealth of the Gores and Clintons. As a side note, Gore closed GIM’s second "green" fund, Climate Solutions Fund, in April at $683 million. The first fund, Global Equity Strategy Fund, has invested $2.2 billion in large companies judged to have, from an environmental, social and economic viewpoint, a "sustainable" business.

I wonder, can any of the companies that Gore is investing billions in help him and his Nashville mansion use less than 10 times the amount of energy the average American household uses? But don’t worry, he’s using compact fluorescents in his house, so it’s ok to use 10 times as much energy as everyone else. Speaking of Gore’s waste and gluttony, I wonder how ginormous his carbon footprint was while he was jetting around the world promoting his lie/movie and trying to convince everyone to invest in
his companies.

It was reported in April that An Inconvenient Truth used computer-generated footage from the movie The Day After Tomorrow to show a crumbling ice shelf. Those are the kinds of deceptions necessary when trying to convince the world of a lie. Just as Nazi Propaganda Chief Joseph Goebbels said, "[T]ell a lie enough and it becomes accepted as truth." As well as that has worked for Gore, support for his "planet in peril" mantra is eroding faster than he claims the ice caps are. In 2007 a British court held that, in order for his lie/movie to be shown to school children, "eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of the [students]." Among those inaccuracies, the court ruled, was that rises in CO2 lagged behind temperature rises by 800-2,000 years; that despite the movie’s claim, it is a scientific impossibility for global warming to cause the Gulf Steam to stop flowing; and that, while the movie claims sea levels could rise 23 feet, the evidence showed sea levels are expected to rise 15 inches over the next 100 years. If you believe Gore, we shouldn’t even bother buying green bananas, the end is so close at hand. Gore should have won his Oscar for the best mockumentary, not documentary, of 2007.

The idea of exposing the lies behind global warming in courtrooms is catching on in the U.S. also. John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, published an article in ICECAP last year in which he called global warming the greatest scam in history. Coleman added, "[S]ome dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the ‘research’ to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus." Coleman didn’t stop there. On March 3, while attending the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York he said the following: "I have a feeling this is the opening. If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits, that includes Al Gore – that lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the witness stand and testified, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming." Well, it worked in Britain.

Another famous Albert (Einstein), this one with a background in math and science, however, once noted that the consensus of a 100 scientists is undone by one fact. Steve McIntyre and a team of volunteers noticed some inconsistencies and an unusual discontinuity in the US temperature data used for climate modeling. When they asked NASA’s Hanson for the algorithm, he refused. (All in the name of science and consensus, I’m sure.) McIntyre and his team reverse-engineered it. What they found was a jump in many locations, all occurring around January 2000. As previously noted, NASA has released corrected data. Hanson can’t even fix the Y2K glitch in his climate model, and we’re supposed to radically change global lifestyles and economics based on his numbers?
Joseph D’Alea, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast, says that "carbon dioxide (CO2) is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume. . . Only 0.0275 of atmospheric CO2 is [man-made] in origin. . . We are responsible for 0.00001 of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere were a 100-story building, our [man-made] CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor." Do we really want to spend a trillion dollars on linoleum?
"We’ve been warming up about a degree per century since the Little Ice Age (LIA) in about 1600. We’ve been warming for 400 years, long before human-generated CO2 could have anything to do with the climate," says Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University. Dr. Easterbrook is not alone in his opinion. Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, opines "[O]f course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the LIA, not because we are putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

On December 13, 2007, 100 scientists (often referred to as the Bali-100) wrote an open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, His Excellency Ban Li-Moon, in New York, NY. Among other things, the letter made three significant declarations: 1. "[R]ecent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. 2. The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century fall within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. 3. Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling." The letter continued, "In stark contrast to the oft repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,’ significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But, because these IPCC working groups were generally instructed to consider work published only through May 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated." In case you are wondering, these are not some lunatic-fringe, pseudo-scientists. Of the 100 signatories to that letter, 85 hold a PhD. They closed the letter by saying, "[A]ttemps to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems."
On March 4, at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, more than 500 scientists closed the conference with what is referred to as the Manhattan Declaration. In short, they declared that "global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life. . . There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change. . . Now, therefore, we recommend that world leaders reject the view expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided, works such as An Inconvenient Truth." How many of you heard or read about these declarations in the mainstream media? Is this the consensus that Saint Gore and his co-conspirators in the media speak of?

On April 14, 2008, a group of scientists (Hans Schreuder, Piers Corbyn, Dr. Don Parkes, Svend Hendriksen*), including a former Nobel Peace Prize recipient*, sent a letter to the IPCC. The letter opens with "[W]e are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change." They close the letter by asking that the IPCC "and all those whose names are associated with the IPCC policy accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy."

Do you still think there is consensus? Try this on: between 1999 and 2001 a petition (commonly referred to as the Oregon Project) was attached to a 12 page paper and circulated within the scientific community. The petition reads, in its entirety: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." This petition was signed by nearly 20,000 scientists. More than 7,000 are PhDs. Of the 263 signatories from Tennessee, more than 53% hold a PhD or MD.

While critics of the petition have pointed to fake signatures (e.g., Janet Jackson, Perry Mason, etc.), no doubt put there by those wanting to discredit it, none have attacked the science and evidence cited in the paper. The paper this petition was attached to was written by three scientists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. They wrote that the "average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3 degrees C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period known as the Little Ice Age. . . Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood." (Imagine a needle scratching across a record.) Stop. Back up. The Earth’s temperature is regulated by the sun? Absolutely ground-breaking. What will they think of next? The paper’s summary continues, "While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length."

"Comprehensive surveys of published temperature records confirm the fact that the current Earth temperature is approximately 1 degrees C lower than that during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago. Surface temperatures in the United States during the past century reflect this warming trend and its correlation with solar activity. . . Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence – actual measurements of Earth’s temperature and climate – shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing. . . The temperature of the Earth is continuing its process fluctuation in correlation with variations in natural phenomena. Mankind, meanwhile, is moving some of the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result."
Those that will attack me for my views and call me a "denier," or worse, a Republican, will also likely claim that the scientists I have cited are in the pocket of Big Oil. Very few scientists have taken money from Big Oil, simply because they don’t give that much out. True, they have given $20 million to fund climate change research over the past two decades. However, over that same period of time proponents of the theory of global warming have received $50 billion in funding.

For those of you not mathematically inclined, $20 million is 0.004 of $50 billion. Who’s in whose pocket?
So what have the doomsday predictions gotten us? An ethanol mandate. And we can, once again, thank Al Gore for that. As vice president, Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate in 1994 mandating the use of ethanol. Well, that’s good, right? It lessens our dependence on foreign oil, doesn’t it? Not so much. Until we get past the environmentalist whackos and actually tap our own vast oil reserves, we are stuck buying it on the world market. Recent studies have indicated that corn ethanol creates more greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline.
But, there is a larger concern regarding the use of ethanol. "It takes 400 pounds of corn to produce 25 gallons of ethanol," says Benjamin Senauer, Professor of Applied Economics and Co-director of the Food Industry Center at the University of Minnesota. While that diet leaves a lot to be desired, it’s enough to feed an adult male for one year. An IPCC member and Nobel Peace Prize winner with Gore in 2007, Rajendra Pachauri, is also concerned. "We should be very, very careful about coming up with biofuel solutions that have major impact on production of food grains and may have an implication for overall food security, " says Pachauri.

That’s an understatement. Riots have broken out around the world as the effects of this mandate are being felt globally. An estimated 30% of America’s corn crop is now being allocated for fuel, not food. The riots in Haiti, Indonesia, and Afghanistan are someone else’s problem, right? Not necessarily. Sam’s Club and Costco have already started rationing rice. Vietnam and Cambodia have stopped exporting it all together. In 2008 alone the price of rice has increased 68%. Milk and bread prices are up 11 – 25%, and global food prices are up 83%. The International Food Policy Research Institute has released a study that indicates 25 – 33% of the rise in commodities are due to biofuels. I wonder, how many of Gore’s companies are in the biofuel business? The UN high commission on refugees has said that the American and European mandates on biofuels are a crime against humanity. It pains me to say it, but I agree with the UN.


The world stopped warming in 1998.
In fact, the cooling that has taken place since then has all but erased the small temperature increase of the 20th century. How is that possible, especially since each year China increases its output of CO2 equal to that of Germany? As previously noted (with shock and dismay), the sun sets the thermostat on Earth, not the evil, SUV-driving Republicans. And UN meteorologists have said that 2008 will be colder than last year.
The US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) recently reported that the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th century mean (-0.02 degrees F / -0.01 degrees C) for the first time since 1982. Based on data from the NCDC, the UK Telegraph reported in February that "[T]emperatures were also colder than average across large swathes of central Asia, the Middle East, the western US, western Alaska and southeastern China."

"The peak U.S. temperature was 1934, at much the same time that Total Solar Irradiance peaked," says Dr. Archibald. He continues, "[A]t its simplest, the relationship between the solar magnetic field strength and the Earth’s climate is this: lower magnetic field strength means few sunspots, fewer sunspots means less solar wind, less solar wind means more galactic cosmic rays, more galactic cosmic rays means more low level cloud formation, more low level clouds means more sunlight reflected back into space, which in turn means less heating of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere." Dr. Archibald is far from alone. Dr. Tapping, solar researcher and project director for Canada’s National Research Council, says "[S]olar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quite. The last time this happened was about 400 years ago – and it signaled a solar event known as the ‘Maunder Minimum,’ along with the start of what we now call the ‘Little Ice Age.’"
Looking at real, quantifiable data, and not faulty computer modeling, retired engineer P eter Harris has reached similar conclusions. Harris says, "[T]here is abundant archeological evidence to show that global temperature is closely correlated with solar activity. . . The data is based on analysis of carbon 14, which varies in concentration according to the level of solar activity. Solar activity over the past 70 years has been greatest for 8,000 years, and is the most likely cause of the recent trend through 1998 that has wrongly been attributed to CO2 warming.

"Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming," explains Phil Chapman, a geophysicist, astronautical engineer and NASA astronaut, "the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or declined during the past decade, despite continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously. All four agencies tracking Earth’s temperature (the Hadley Climate Research unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy Group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7 degrees C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."

In the next decade or so the global warming fraud will be exposed for what it is, a massive power and money grab by those who seek to rule over us and redistribute wealth, all the while bringing us to socialism. That day will be a dark day indeed for all the alarmists. What will be said of the great crusader, Academy Award and Nobel Prize winner Albert Gore? If I were to write it, it would say: "Al Gore: the man who invented the Internet later conned the world out of billions of dollars."

For those of you not willing to swallow the methane-producing manure that is shoveled at you everyday by a liberal and biased media, and would like to educate yourself, there are a seemingly countless number of websites and papers to read on this subject. I recommend starting your education by going to www.climatedebatedaily.com and www.climatepolice.com. Another great resource for "exposing liberal media bias" is www.newsbusters.org. Look at the science, not the dogma. Trust in what they can prove, not what they predict.

Comments (7)