What Causes Climate Change, And When Will It Kill Us All?
We've been hearing a lot recently with renewed interest in Climate change, global warming, carbon emissions and other doomsday-esque rumblings, in between the fear mongering of the global pandemic and imminent WW3. So, I started to wonder, with all the seemingly factual and hard-hitting articles being pushed out, what is climate change? I don't actually know why Climate change happens; when did it begin? How did anyone notice, was it a moment or was it searched for, and why? How do they measure what's good or bad?
Thus began my delve into what would become a shock to learn: that the global warming narrative has been pushed onto the public since at least the 1970s, but with each decade renews with a more forceful attitude, and most shockingly, that Climate change and global warming, according to almost 1000 of the best climatologists and scientists, (seventy of which are Nobel prize winners) is a hoax.
"Over 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are Nobel Prize
winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal which says that no compelling
evidence exists to justify controls of greenhouse gas emissions,
manmade greenhouse gas emissions. They agree it is a hoax.""I believe it is extremely important for the future of this country
that the facts and the science get a fair hearing. Without proper
knowledge and understanding, alarmists will scare the country into
enacting its ultimate goal: Making energy suppression in the form of
harmful mandatory restrictions on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
emissions the official policy of the United States of America.
Such a policy would induce serious economic harm, especially for the
low-income and minority populations. Energy suppression, as official
Government and nonpartisan private analyses have amply confirmed, means
higher prices for food, higher prices for medical care, and higher
prices for electricity, as well as massive job losses and drastic
reductions in gross domestic product, all the while providing virtually
no environmental benefit. In other words, it is a raw deal for the
American people but especially the poor."Over 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are Nobel Prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal which says that no compelling evidence exists to justify controls of greenhouse gas emissions, manmade greenhouse gas emissions. They agree it is a hoax. Now, I also want to point to a 1998 survey of State climatologists, which reveals that a majority of respondents have serious doubts about whether anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases present a serious threat to climate stability.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases
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." - Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
As many of us remember, back in 1992, members of an environmental group seized on data from NASA suggesting that an ozone hole was developing in the Northern Hemisphere. The Senate then rushed into panic mode, ramming through by a vote of 96-0 an accelerated ban on certain chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants. (Hairspray cans with continuous spray). Only 2 weeks later NASA produced new data showing that their initial finding was a gross exaggeration and the ozone hole NEVER ACTUALLY EXISTED. I bet you didn't know that, huh? It was exactly today, while writing this article, that I learned that there was NO hole in the ozone layer, as I'd been led to believe. Why? Because the media just ignored it. It got the job done. Based on a lie. That is the power the media had and has. Even today, if you search for info online about the ozone layer hole, you will find articles stating it healed after we banned the spray hairspray. Some less than savory articles even claim that it still exists, "opening" and "closing" based on the season. That is, obviously, absurd, according to renowned scientists.
However, the issue of world-ending, catastrophic global warming, which I write about today, fits perfectly this mode. Much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear rather than science. Global-warming alarmists see a future plagued by catastrophic flooding, war, terrorism, economic dislocations, drought, crop failures, mosquito-borne diseases, viruses and harsh weather, all caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions, all by us. That's the narrative we're led to believe. Hans Blix, the guy who could not find anything with both hands, chief of the U.S. weapons inspectors, sounded both ridiculous and alarmist when he said in March 2002: "I am more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict." Ironic. Incompetent, really, when looking back, considering the date.
Lets look at the facts the professionals have laid out. As an aside, I should mention, it was very difficult to find any actual data on climate change on any search engine, except for what the Big Name News was putting out (New York Times/ Washington Post), and as I no longer consider that as a reliable source, I look for scientific studies done by universities, etc. In this case, my information was all derived from the official Congressional records, Volume 149, Number 113 (Monday, July 28, 2003)] [Senate] [Pages S10012-S10023] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] which I will link at the end of this article.
Always, global temperature rise comes first, followed by a carbon dioxide boost about 400 to 1,000 years later. This contradicts everything alarmists have been saying about manmade global warming in the 20th century. Ill repeat that: The temperature always precipitates the carbon dioxide increase. We can go even further back, some 400,000 years, and see this phenomenon occurring. Yet the doomsayers, undeterred by these facts, will not quit. In February and March of 2002, the New York Times and the Washington Post, among others, reported on the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf in the Antarctic Peninsula, causing quite a stir in the media, and providing alarmists with more propaganda to scare the public.
We can see this goes back 400,000 years. No one is going to refute this, but the Earth's natural 12,000-year cycle of increases and decreases in temperatures is followed by an increase and decrease in CO2. We can see the trends going all the way back. It has not really made a major change. Although there was no link to global warming, the Times could not help but make a suggestion in its March 20, 2002 edition: "While it is too soon to say whether the changes there are related to a buildup of ``greenhouse'' gas emissions that scientists believe are warming the planet, many experts said it was getting harder to find any other explanation."
The Times, however, simply ignored a recent study in the Journal of Nature which found the Antarctic has been COOLING, since 1966. Another study in Science recently found the West Antarctic ice sheet to be thickening rather than thinning. University of Illinois researchers also reported a net cooling on the Antarctic Continent between 1966 and 2000. In some regions, such as the McMurdo dry valleys, temperatures cooled between 1986 and 1999 by as much as 2 degrees during that timeframe. In perhaps the most devastating critique of glacial alarmism, the American Geophysical Union found the Arctic was warmer in 1935 than it is today. That bears repeating. Eighty percent of the carbon dioxide from human activities was added to the air after WW2. Yet the Arctic was warmer in 1935 than it is today. So not only is glacial alarmism flawed, there is no evidence, as shown by measurements from satellites and weather balloons, of any meaningful warming trends in the 20th century.
I will now talk about health risks. The subject I am going to talk about is probably the most significant, so I hope people wont go away. Even as we discuss whether temperatures will go up or down, we should ask whether global warming will actually produce the catastrophic effects the alarmists confidently predict. What gets obscured in the global warming debate is the fact that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is necessary for life. Numerous studies have shown that global warming can actually be beneficial to mankind. Most plants, especially wheat and rice, grow considerably better when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 works like a fertilizer; higher temperatures further enhance the CO2 fertilizer effect. In fact, the average crop, according to Dr. John Reilly of the MIT Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global Change, is 30 percent higher in a CO2-enhanced world. I repeat that: 30 percent higher in a CO2-enhanced world. This is not just a matter of opinion but a well-established phenomenon. With regard to the impact of global warming on human health, it is assumed that higher temperatures will induce more deaths and massive outbreaks of deadly diseases. In particular, a frequent scare tactic by alarmists is that warmer temperatures will spark malaria outbreaks. Dr. Paul Reiter convincingly debunks this claim in a 2000 study for the Centers for Disease Control. As Reiter found: Until the second half of the 20th century, malaria was endemic and widespread in many temperature regions-- This next point is critical-- with major epidemics as far north as the Arctic Circle. Reiter also published a second study in the March 2001 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives showing that ``despite spectacular cooling, malaria persisted throughout Europe.''
Back to the IPCC's third assessment. In addition to trying to predict the future, the third assessment report looked into the past. The IPCC released a graph depicting global temperatures trending slightly downward over the last 10 centuries and then rather dramatically increasing beginning around 1900. The cause for such a shift, of course, is attributed to industrialization and manmade greenhouse gas emissions. The now infamous ``hockey stick'' graph was enthusiastically embraced by IPCC which used it as a basis for the third assessment. Dr. Michael Mann at the University of Virginia was its principal authority. The study, which Mann and others conducted, examined climate trends over the past 1,000 years. As many scientists have pointed out since its publication, it contains many flaws. Stay with me. First, Mann's study focuses on temperate trends only in the northern hemisphere. Mann extrapolated that data to reach the conclusion that global temperatures remained relatively stable and then dramatically increased at the beginning of the 20th century. That leads to Mann's conclusion that the 20th century has been the warmest in the last 1,000 years. As is obvious, however, such an extrapolation cannot provide a reliable global perspective of long-term climate changes. Moreover, Mann's conclusions were drawn mainly from 12 sets of climate proxy data, of which 9 were tree rings, while the remaining 3 came from ice cores. Notably, some of the ice core data was drawn from the southern hemisphere--one from Greenland and two from Peru. What is left is a picture of the northern hemisphere based on eight sets of tree ring data--again, hardly a convincing global picture for the last 1,000 years. Mann's hockey stick dismisses both the Medieval Warm Period--and that was roughly 800 A.D. to about 1300, 1350 A.D.--and the Little Ice Age which was from 1350 to 1850, two climatic events that are fairly widely recognized in the scientific literature to be accurate. Mann believes that the 20th century is ``nominally the warmest'' of the past millennium and that the decade of the 1990s was the warmest decade on record. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate until 1900. But as is clear from a close analysis of Mann's methods, the hockey stick is formed by crudely grafting the surface temperature record of the 20th century into a pre-1900 tree ring record. This is a highly controversial and scientifically flawed approach. As is widely recognized in the scientific community, two data series representing radically different variables--temperature and tree rings--cannot be grafted together credibly to create a single series. In simple terms, as Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia explained, this is like comparing apples to oranges.
Why has the media stayed silent about this, you'd ask? A petition with over 17,800 independently verified signatures, and for those signers who hold a Ph.D., 95 percent have now been independently verified. Environmental groups have attacked the credibility of this petition based on one false name sent in by some green pranksters. Several names are still on the list even though biased press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. A guy named Perry Mason, for example, is a Ph.D. chemist. He was one of the signers. The most significant thing that just recently came out is the Harvard Smithsonian 1,000-year climate study. Let me turn to an important new study by the researchers. The study entitled ``Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1,000 Years'' offers a devastating critique of Mann's (above) hypothesis calling into question the IPCC's Third Assessment, and indeed the entire intellectual foundation of the climate activists views. It draws on extensive evidence showing that major changes in global temperatures result not from manmade emissions but from natural causes.
So, what could be the motivation behind fear mongering of a made up global catastrophe via man made climate change?
As I pointed out, the science underlying climate change isn't adding up..
ENTER: THE UN PARIS AGGREEMENT, or KYOTO PROTOCOL REBRANDED
In early 2000s, the Kyoto Protocol had been thoroughly discredited. It was the UN climate change treaty for all the world's countries to sign, and pledge ways to reduce their carbon footprint. President Biden just pledged America to become 100% carbon free by 2030. Gas prices starting to make sense? Kyoto failed then, spectacularly. But for some reason the drive to implement Kyoto (called Paris Agreement today) continues apace in the United States and more fervently in Europe. What is going on here? The Europeans continue to insist that the United States should honor its international responsibilities and ratify, since to be constitutionally legal, the senate needs to approve any treaties, including international ones. In June of 2001 Germany released a statement declaring the world needs Kyoto because its greenhouse gas reduction targets are indispensable. Similarly, Swedish Prime Minister Goeran Persson, in June of 2001, said flatly and without explanation that ``Kyoto is necessary.'' The question is, indispensable and necessary for what? Certainly not for further reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as Europe has proven. According to news reports earlier this year, the European Union has failed to meet its targets. As we know, according to the best scientific evidence, and proven before by Kyoto, Paris will do nothing to reduce global temperatures. As it turns out, Paris/Kyoto's objective has nothing to do with saving the globe. In fact, it is purely political. The case in point, French President Jacques Chirac said during a speech at The Hague in November of 2002 that Kyoto represents ``the first component of an authentic global governance.''
Keep in mind who we are talking about--President of France. He wants the authentic global governance. You have to ask if we are going to let the French dictate our United States policy.
Margot Wallstrom, EU environment commissioner, takes a different view but one instructive about the real motives of Kyoto proponents. She asserts that Kyoto is about ``the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide.'' In other words, we in this country should "level the playing field", so we are equal with other countries, including India and africa. That is very significant in terms of what the real motives are. Chirac and Wallstrom's comments mean two things: Global warming, greenhouse emissions, etc is fearmongering in order to get the publics support for the US to enter and accept the UN Paris Accord, which, like Kyoto back then, represents an attempt by certain unelected groups within the international community (UN/WEF) to restrain United States interests; second, Its an economic weapon designed to undermine the global competitiveness and economic superiority of the United States.
I am mystified that our representatives in congress are ignoring this, choosing instead to spend their time time acting like reality show stars and bickering over pointless and mundane issues. I'm shocked in the media, slapping their knees while blithely asserting that the science of global warming is settled; that is, fossil fuel emissions are the principal, driving cause of global warming. I question who they're on the pay roll of. In a letter to the previous EPA chair concerning the next EPA administrator, two Senators wrote, ``The pressing problem of global warming'' is now ``established scientific fact,'' and demanded that the new administrator commit to addressing it. With all due respect, this statement is baseless for several reasons, as I outlined in detail above. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of those who do NOT see global warming proposing harm to the planet and who do not think human beings have any significant influence on the climate system. This leads to another question: Why would Congress subject the United States to these measures that have no environmental benefits and cause major serious harm to the economy and our way of life, with zero benefit to the environment? It beggars belief that the UN Paris Agreement that Biden signed us into last year has been all but ignored by the media, by our representatives. Why? In fact, I'm aware that there are several pieces of legislation that allow the legally binding treaty to proceed without ratification, and these groups are heavily funded.
We must reject approaches designed not to solve an environmental problem but to satisfy the ever-growing demand of globalist groups for power and greed, as well as other extremists who simply do not like capitalism, free markets, and freedom. Climate alarmists see an opportunity here to tax the American people. But i will get to that in my next article.
Climate science still confronts uncertainties, but a solution being a field tax to prepare for a "potentially" catastrophic future is unnecessary, and it's immoral and downright lies to suggest it is imminent. It is not. Based on the case I have outlined today, such a course of action fits a particularly ideological agenda but is entirely unwarranted. It is my fervent hope in or democracy that Congress will reject prophets of doom who peddle propaganda masquerading as science in the name of saving the planet. And I urge you, dear readers, to petition your representatives to put stock in real scientists who rely on the best, most objective scientific data and reject fear and greed as a motivating basis for making public policy decisions.
Let me be very clear: Alarmists are attempting to enact an agenda of energy suppression that is inconsistent with American values, freedom, prosperity, and environmental problems, with a goal of global domination led by a technocracy of sociopaths, and it has been in the works for at least 65 years.
So I will just conclude by saying: Wake up, America. With all the
hysteria, all the fear, all the phony science, could it be that manmade
global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American
people? I believe it is.
And if we allow these detractors of everything that has made America
great, those ranging from the liberal Hollywood elitists to those who
are in it for the money, if we allow them to destroy the foundation,
the greatness of the most highly industrialized nation in the history
of the world, then we don't deserve to live in this one nation under
God. So I say to the real people: Wake up, make your voice heard.Sauce: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2003-07-28/html/CREC-2003-07-28-pt1-PgS10012.htm
