July 20th, 2009
Nobody likes a heretic. I want to believe oh so much in the New Church of Environmentalism. But I can't do it. We are being lied to on a scale almost unimaginably large: by politicians, some scientists—(though certainly not all, just vocal ones), our media outlets, heck, even our schools and churches by this point.
Let's clean up our act anyhow. Diesel and gas fumes stink. They make ugly smoke and smog. Let's find alternatives with less impact, for sure. Industries dump all kinds of crap into our water and air, and there certainly is an effect on ecologies by those. So let's clean up our act if we think it's a good idea, but let's not invent a religious belief about why ... and let's not expect the world to start cooling down the moment we've eliminated our footprint (if that is even possible).
Yes, humans are producing more CO2 than ever, but those gasses are not "greenhouse gasses" and not contributing to global warming. The world hasn't warmed in almost a decade anyhow.
No "greenhouse gas" signature
Just about all media attention on the subject is based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report which was originally commissioned by the United Nations. This is the report that started the whole ball rolling, since it is considered the cornerstone of all environmental concerns, including the launch of a lot of "science" based on funding made possible by the dire warnings in this report.
Except it is fundamentally wrong in its most important tenet! The IPCC report predicts hot spots as a signature of the so-called greenhouse gasses. Its whole scientific foundation is based on the tenet that greenhouse gasses are responsible for warming our atmosphere. But measured temperatures of the atmosphere have not shown those hot spots at all. In fact, there was a tiny decrease in temperature where the hot spots should be. The science—real science, mind you, not some poorly-reported media hype is well explained here: http://www.sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf.
Oh, by the way, the world started warming before there were human-based CO2 emissions. Are we supposed to believe that the world started warming in anticipation of our CO2 emissions?
... erm ... It's not getting hotter any more.
Since 2001, satellite data has show that the world is not warming up. Satellite data is far more reliable for measuring temperature than the ground-based stations. As Joanne Nova writes in The Skeptic's Handbook (see: http://joannenova.com.au for this document and others like it): "Would you trust data from sensitive thermometers in parking lots surrounded by concrete, beside busy roads and within meters of air conditioning outlets?" By the way, unlike a lot of politicians and some media outlets, she actually cites a source for this: http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm.
Ice cores tell the damning tale
If the warming trend is over, and temperatures have leveled off then it's really hard to believe the concept that CO2 is responsible for global warming, since CO2 released by humans has been higher in the last decade than in any other decade, but with no effect. Also, don't forget that temperature rises started before humans started producing CO2. Vostok Ice Core samples—those are the ones Al Gore said were "complicated" as a way of explaining away contradictory evidence—show that the CO2 levels rise and fall hundreds of years after warming trends. Yes, "complicated", indeed!
One last thing about the amount of CO2 : the primary (human) sources of CO2 emissions are cars and power generating plants. Both sources also produce aerosols, which actually have a cooling effect on global temperatures, and the extent of this cooling is equal to the warming effect of CO2. Again, don't take my word for it: Dr. James Hansen, and Makiko Sato (two NASA scientists) describe it in “Trends of measured climate forcing agents”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 98, no. 26, 18 Dec. 2001, p. 14778-14783, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/ content/full/98/26/14778.
There's more. I might go on about it in some future rant. But for now I want to move on to why.
Money Money Money
I know, I suddenly sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but I believe that the real reason such panic about CO2 is being fostered by politicians is the result of business and finance intrigue: They want to institute their Cap and Trade scheme (here's a description of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading)
If the science is bogus, then Cap and Trade is not about saving the world at all. It's about a new form of tax and a new form of profit and earnings for those who deal in them. It is a method for larger concerns to make a lot of money at the expense of peoples' religious belief and guilty acquiescence.
If one is to believe the scientific evidence (the real evidence, not the political UN-based, celebrity-hyped pseudo-science) it's pretty easy to see that Cap and Trade is a False Market. And False Markets are notorious for having pre-determined winners and losers—in this case winners who control the carbon credits, and losers who ... well, are pretty much the rest of us slobs. Those folks who control the carbon, will hold the purse-strings for the rest of us. You think that's far-fetched? Look at the economic mess most of the world is in right now. That was also caused by the collapse of a False Market.
And that, I think, is the real point: Our near-religious insistence that we are destroying our world has nothing to do with science, despite being cloaked in pseudo scientific ramblings. In reality, it is being fostered and encouraged by the people most interested in profiting from the Cap and Trade scam that is being worked out by legislators around the world right now. Our feelings and fears are being exploited by a select few to make themselves richer.
Read more rants - Comment on this rant - Email me