Sep 19 2006

Global Warming Mythology Debunked

Published by at 10:08 pm under All General Discussions,Global Warming

I have said many times (a) the temperature of the earth is rising (has been for hundreds of years), (b) no scientific evidence has been produced determing the sources of the warming and (c) no scienitific evidence exists on how much is due to human activity (I was wagering less than 10%). I have posted many times on this subject and now I have a new category set up for all my posts. Why? Because the global warming mythology regarding humans as the prime source is facing scientific rigour and falling apart.

Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause, one of the nation’s top experts on hurricanes said Monday morning.

Bill Gray, who has studied tropical meteorology for more than 40 years, spoke at the Larimer County Republican Club Breakfast about global warming and whether humans are to blame. About 50 people were at the talk.

Gray, who is a professor at Colorado State University, said human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants.

“I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure that’s it.”

All the evidence actually points away from human activity as the driving force. And the solutions to green house gasses is not to educe emissions but try and terra form regions like the sub-Sahara into large forested areas using desalination plants to increase the planets capacity to absorb CO2. Something that is LESS costly than trying to stop technological advances and which would help lift Africa out of the 3rd world state it is in and save many animal and plant species. But this kind of idea makes too much sense and would take money away from those making a buck doing their chicken little dances to the media.

16 responses so far

16 Responses to “Global Warming Mythology Debunked”

  1. MerlinOS2 says:

    I play the stock market every day and I have an intimate appreciation for incomplete data from many sources.

    I don’t work on the “convincing arguments”, I just work on what is the mathematical movement and not fight it but take advantage.

    For anyone to suggest they can predict with any certainty something that is so closely followed and historically documented as the world’s stock markets is hoke and smoke except for generalities.

    Environmental conclusions based on all specific data points would result in a covarient matrix of so many degrees of freedom from a statistical standpoint that any conclusions drawn would have to be suspect or at least less than significant.

    There are too many inputs, with too much doubt.

    For example a more simple problem is to suggest we can predict exactly every tropical storm, where they start, where they strengthen and what their path and effect will be.

    Ok , I got that.

  2. archtop says:

    I’ve always found it interesting that climatologists can claim to be able to predict tiny increases in temperature levels several *decades* from now, but they still can’t predict the climate conditions *one year* from now with great accuracy. If climate science was as advanced as it appears to the lay public, they could tell us if there was going to be a drought in the midwest next year, and save farmers the trouble of planting crops. Or they could predict that we would have many more hurricanes make landfall this year than 2005 because of higher sea surface temperatures due to global warming, and they would all be cat 5 storms and…uh…well… they already made that prediction, didn’t they?

  3. Retired Spook says:

    For anyone interested in the GW debate, one of the best resources I’ve discovered is World Climate Report they don’t post every day, but it’s well written, well researched, and the archives over the last two years provide some fascinating reading.

  4. Barbara says:

    I’ve said for years the same thing Professor Gray is saying. People hype global warming to get grants and donations from the gullible. Pure and simple.

    Back in the 19th century and backwards from there, horses were everywhere, dropping their manure in the streets and everywhere else. There were no sewers and people threw excrement out the windows into the streets below. The stench must have been terrific. This should have, by all rights, caused global warming from the gases that formed from these things. Nothing was ever said by any scientists about global warming at that time. It may be they didn’t know about global warming. Lucky them. They didn’t have to hear this garbage. And by the way the dems are accusing us of fearmongering. What do they call global warming?
    But compared to that time the air is actually cleaner now than it was then.

  5. momdear1 says:

    Having served on the board of Directors of a National “Environmental” Organization I can tell you from first hand knowledge that the Global Warming scare is brought to you by the same people who started the Alar in the Apples scare.. As one of the lleaders said, “I can bull shit anybody about anything.” And they do. Most of these pseudo sceintific reports written by Dr. So and So are written by people who have Phd.’s in Psychology or some other nonscientific subject. I know one who has a Phd in religion who writes scence reports.

    People need to understand that all national dissident groups were organized and are run by militant activists from the 60’s Peace and Civil Rights movements. (FBI) They don’t give a whit about whatever cause they claim to espouse. Their stated aim is “to unite all dissident groups and empower them to overthrow the government.” They selected the environment as the topic which they hoped would unite all Americans to their cause, because everybody has somehting going on in their area that they don’t like. These people have Phds in psychology and know how to manipulate the public, politicans and the press.

    Anyone with a grain of intelligence would realize that if the eruption of one volcano puts as much polution into the air as all of mankind in the past hundred years, there is little mankind can do to make a difference., one way or the other.

  6. Roberto says:

    Thanks MOMDEAR1.

    Is global warming throwing preemie babies out of incubators in Iraq too?

  7. Retired Spook says:

    Barbara, much was made recently by the global warming alarmists that the earth is the warmest it has been in at least 400 years — maybe as much as 2-3,000 years. Several of us joked in a thread on another blog that there must have been a whole lot of horse farting going on back then. The funny thing is, the whackos don’t seem to see the irony in saying that the earth is as warm as it was 400 years ago (or 3,000 years ago).

  8. Barbara says:


    What I want to know is how the hell do they know how warm it was 400 years ago much less 3,000 years ago. There was no one measuring temperature at that time. They didn’t even have instruments After all 400 years ago would by 1606. I just don’t believe they could get this information about the past from the earth today. It must be that curve or graph or whatever they made up.

  9. Retired Spook says:

    What I want to know is how the hell do they know how warm it was 400 years ago much less 3,000 years ago.

    Quite a bit is known about historical temperatures by studying ice cores and tree rings. this piece is a pretty detailed account of what can be learned from ice cores. However, at the end, the author admits the following:

    Using the techniques listed above and more, climatologists can attempt to reconstruct past climates and recreate the climate system. On the whole, ice cores have proven extremely useful for paleoclimatology, and many scientists have worked tirelessly to extract every shred of information from each sample. Unfortunately, ice cores do present some difficulties and have limitations that scientists must overcome.

    He then proceeds, in three long paragraphs, to describe why ice cores are unreliable indicators of past climate/temperatures. The whole piece is kind of interesting. The funniest part of the whole GW debate to me is the apoplectic reaction you get from Libs when suggest that there is STILL a debate, and that the “science” is not settled. That and the fact the Algore has been saying for about 13 years that we only have 10 years left or we’re doomed — LOL.

  10. For Enforcement says:

    “Or they could predict that we would have many more hurricanes make landfall this year than 2005 because of higher sea surface temperatures due to global warming,”

    But of coourse they’re now explaining the ‘lack’ of storms on cooler surface temps. They sure misssed that one, didn’t they?

  11. For Enforcement says:

    Spook, and of course the tree ring study was only done for north America.

    By the way, it was warmer in 1931 (or 36) than this year. What did we have since then ? Global Cooling?

    Talking about predictions or weather forecasting.
    They are only 50-50 for tomorrow, and less than 10% for a week from now, but they can forecast a hundred years out? Give me a break.

  12. wiley says:

    It’s funny how the libs & the elites cry foul — it’s not fair to scare us! –that Bush & Reps use national security as an important issue for the coming elections. Yet, these same elitists are intolerant of opposing views on college campuses, discriminate against christians & especially catholics in schools & public/government places, and are quite comfortable using scare tactics to promote the variety of enviro issues they hold dear, with GW being at the forefront. Since these people haven’t been winning many electoins, they use the courts to try to enact their left-wing socialist agenda. I just read where CA State was suing 6 carmakers for causing global warming, which causes undue hardship & calamity upon CA citizens and blah, blah, blah. Maybe that’s the Dems real national security plan — don’t terrorize us you Al Qaeda & you Hezbollah b/c we’ll sue your ass! Iran, when you get nukes, just don’t use them, or we’ll sue your ass for global warming!

  13. wiley says:

    It’s funny how the libs & elites cry foul — it’s not fair to scare us! — when Bush and the Reps make national security the key issue in the coming election. Yet these same elitists try to scare us at every turn to promote their various enviro issues, with GW being at the forefront. They rip Bush for trampling our civil liberties, but can never cite any real life examples of this happening. They rip Bush & Reps for being intolerant of their critics, yet they stifle conservative and opposing viewpoints being expressed on college campuses. Political correctness & their secularist agenda precludes religious (at least christian) expressions from schools and govt places.

    I saw on Drudge that CA State is suing 6 carmakers for causing global warming, which causes undue hardships and calmaity for their citizens and blah, blah, blah, blah. These folks can’t seem to implement their liberal socialist agenda thru elections, so they are using the courts. Perhaps this is their real national security plan. For Al Qaeda & Hezbollah & you other terrorists — we won’t bother you if you promise not to bother us. But if you do — watch out, because we’ll sue your asses! Iran — when you get nukes, just don’t use them. If you do, we’ll sue your ass for global warming!

  14. For Enforcement says:

    Wiley, I think that was worth saying twice.

  15. wiley says:

    Yeah, the first post didn’t seem to work & I lost the text, so I did it over again 🙂

  16. misanthropic says:

    Greenhouse Effect A MADMESS

    If we were to increase water temperatures in the period before a nuclear winter(Armageddon) through global warming.
    Higher water temperatures produced by greenhouse gases over the last few decades would stop the formation of large ice sheets increasing survivability greatly.

    “A nuclear winter could form large ice sheets.”Karl Sagan

    These ice sheets if aloud to form, would once the sun returned reflect more sun and heat back into space possibly cursing a runner way ice age.

    Ice, Sunlight And Carbon Dioxide

    The ice cycle has been linked to carbon dioxide cycle in the way that the covering of the sea with ice stops plankton from taking carbon dioxide out of atmosphere, this cursing a build up of carbon dioxide and a subsequent warming, which melts the ice exposing more sea to grow plankton, more carbon dioxide is then absorbed by the plankton, temperatures then fall forming ice sheets again.

    The warmer greenhouse sea would help nuclear MAD survivability greatly.
    Mutual Assured Destruction Mechanisms For Essential Strategic Survival (MADMESS)…_position=56: 56

    Ice is the main reason for the ever-fluctuating co2 levels except we should be at the low end not high.