« That's Daddy's! | Main | Digitally Restricted Media »

Global Hoax

I remember watching an Earth Day TV special back in the late 1980s or early 1990s. I do not remember exactly what year this was. It seems like it was maybe the 20th annual Earth Day or so. The thing about it that I remember the most was that Christopher Lloyd was a part of this TV special reprising his role as "Doc Brown" from the Back To The Future movies (which is probably also why I bothered watching this special--I was very into those movies). I am pretty certain that global warming was discussed during this TV special and was probably my first, or nearly first, introduction to the topic (though, global warming worked its way into many a Weekly Reader which I had to read in school back then).

I used to fall for the global warming propaganda back in those days. How could I not? I would have been about 12, faithfully ingesting everything my government funded public school system threw at me. Why would they have presented anything to me that was not fact?

Fast forward to present day. I have long since dismissed man-made global warming as scientific fact. The global warming "movement" has gained substantial momentum since the release of Al Gore's "documentary" on the subject, An Inconvenient Truth. I have not watched this film, but I did take the time to look through the book of the same name. I am told the material in both the movie version and the book is identical or nearly identical. The book presented very little scientific fact, in my opinion. It seemed to largely be a collection of pictures. There were some speculative charts and graphs too. My conclusion after looking through it was this: if you show the right pictures and make the right comments about those pictures, people will believe man is slowly elevating the temperature of Earth. But there was no credible science presented! In fact, the book came across to me as more of a child's picture book. How ironic that in this particular bookstore, the children's section was in the next aisle...

I say all that to suggest to my readers that they consider a few other sources that I believe present credible science. First of all, a guy named Marlo Lewis has written an almost point-by-point critique of An Incovenient Truth that I have not personally finished reading, but I found Lewis's presentation much more compelling that Mr. Gore's. You can find this work called "A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth" here. The document is available in PDF format by chapter.

Another source is a book called Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 years. I just got this book and have not read much of it, but I heard an interview with the first author, S. Fred Singer and thought he was a very credible scientist. Al Gore as you may recall, is a politician, not a scientist.

I especially like these two sources because they have actually cited credible reference material.

Now, if you do not feel you have time to read through those two sources, consider a few thoughts and apply some simple logic: carbon dioxide is often pointed to as the leading culprit behind global warming. Our cars and coal/natural gas power plants are pointed to as the major man-made carbon dioxide producers that are causing global warming. Oh yeah, humans and animals exhale carbon dioxide. Are our natural breathing processes causing global warming? No doubt, if successful in limiting carbon dioxide emissions from our cars and power plants, our ridiculous politicians will next try to limit how much we breathe!

If you have never been to a true greenhouse, I encourage you to go to one. It will indeed be warmer in the greenhouse than the outside ambient temperature, but I believe the cause has more influence from the higher water vapor concentration (increased humidity) than the carbon dioxide output. I do not have time to provide resources on the influences of water vapor at the moment, but I will try to post more information in the future. Actually, I believe both of the sources I mentioned above talk about it at some point, but you can search the internet for more.

Now, do not get me wrong. Obviously, I am not buying the global warming/carbon dioxide connection. However, I do think it is important to take care of our planet. Pollution certainly does not seem to do any good, and in general, I find it pretty gross--especially during those times that I am stuck behind some 20-year old diesel delivery truck and I am driving with my windows down. Yuck! It is hard for me to breathe.

I do not know why the global warming thing has taken off and gained such momentum, or what Al Gore's purpose is behind it all. With Mr. Gore's recent Nobel award, he has once again proved what a hypocrite he is: on his journey to accept the prize, he took the train from the airport to his hotel publicly commenting that "trains are symbols of environmental consciousness," while his luggage road in a motorcade. Go here for the news article.

Still, from the standpoint of taking care of Earth, I think some good things are coming of it. There is a move in the U.S. to start opening more nuclear power plants (which are safe and clean). And, then there is Tesla Motors. I would love one of these:


Hopefully, as they keep making advancements, they'll get up to 1000+ miles on a single charge. Very cool as it is though, because most other all-electric cars cannot go further than about 40 miles on a single charge.

Anyway, I want to encourage my readers to think through things for yourself with a little logic before you eat up everything our media and Hollywood heroes expect us to believe without question.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (2)


Let me preface this comment by saying I'm not a climatologist, meteorologist, botanist, astronomer, chemist, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I think there are two big things that need to be proven before I will subscribe to any of the global warming paranoia. However, if these get proven it will no longer be paranoia and move into a category I hold in higher regard, scientific FACT.

1.) Global climate temperatures are in fact increasing and not part of any long term cycle of highs and lows.

Good luck with that. With the age of the earth in comparison to the length of time we've been collecting data on the subject I'm thinking more time needs to be spent to successfully prove it to me.

2.) Once #1 above has been proven then it will be necessary and sufficient to prove that my actions as a human are somehow affecting the climate.

Carbon Dioxide sure has had it's poor name dragged through the mud recently. My understanding is that plants take in the CO2 and output good ol' Oxygen. To me that would suggest that a more CO2 rich atmosphere would promote plant growth at least to some degree. See above disclaimer.

The real clincher is Mars. Mars has an atmosphere consisting almost totally of carbon dioxide. 95% according to Wikipedia (I know, I know, not the greatest reference but good enough for my point here). 95%! With all that CO2 it must be an inferno the the likes of which a snowman stands no chance! Not really, using the same Wikipedia entry the mean surface temperature is still -46 degrees (I'm talking Celsius here people, get with the times) and the max isn't even in the positive realm. Meanwhile Earth is struggling with an atmospheric CO2 content that's not even a full tenth of a percent of the total. So sad.

So you may be questioning everything I just wrote above. That's good. It's good to question things you read and things you hear.

Al Gore being the most prominent champion for the global warming paranoia should most definitely be questioned. I would never take a politician's word on this subject or really any subject but that's another rant.


Thanks, Frank. As I read your comment, I remembered that I had intended to include a paragraph discussing exactly what your first point discusses. Say our theories on global warming are based on roughly 100 years of recorded temperature data (and that's being very generous). If you believe that God created the Earth around 6,000 years ago, the prevailing ideas on global warming are based on 1.666666667% of historical data. Or, if you believe that the Earth is around 4 billion years old, then global warming idea is based on 0.0000025% of history. Either way, that's a miniscule chunk of data from which to base the idea of global warming on.

Post a comment


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on December 11, 2007 5:02 PM.

The previous post in this blog was That's Daddy's!.

The next post in this blog is Digitally Restricted Media.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.