My Inconvenient Truth

I'll cut right to the point: There is NO SUCH THING as global warming. There, I said it.

People have been buying into the myth for to long and when sports magazines begin focusing on it you know it's out of control. In the newest issue of Sports Illustrated (which is owned by Time magazine) they feature a several page article on the topic of global warming. Why?? Are sports in this country that boring that sporting publications are now having to throw their 2 cents in about the hot political topic of the day? I found it was ironic that the week S.I. came out with this one-sided opinion that a massive snow front moved through the mid-west causing the postponement of several baseball games.

Now for some facts:

1) While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.

2) In fact only the Northern Hemisphere has shown any signs of warming. The Southern Hemisphere has shown none.

3) Global warming is not causing more natural disasters. Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes. Including last year which was one of the quietest hurricane seasons ever recorded.

4) Time magazine and Newsweek have both been all over this global warming news by being the front runners in the national scare. Did you know from 1940-1975 the earth's global temperature actually decreased? Which caused both "news" magazine in the early 70's to write articles predicting a second ice age was coming? They called this theory... are you ready for this, "Global Cooling". I can't make this stuff up.

5) Every prediction that is thrown out for global warming in the future is 100% guessing. Global warming backers use computer models that they feed their information to in order to get their results. The equivalent would be if my family was about to go on vacation and my neighbor told us not to go because we may be in a car accident. He's only guessing based on the fact that there are car accidents. He doesn't know what will happen once we get on the road. It's the same with global warming. Does it really make sense to think we can predict what the earth's climate will be in 100 years? We tried that in the 70's and look where it got us. We went from predicting a global freeze to global warming. We didn't even make it 30 years before we proved ourselves wrong.

6) And on this whole idea that all scientist believe in the global warming theory and our role in it: A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

All of the above mention facts were found on various credible websites like , and

This is not a liberal vs conservative argument. This is a reasonable vs unreasonable discussion. To many publications want to give readers a very one-sided take on the global warming theory that when taken with all the facts makes the whole idea very unlikely and unreasonable.

Some great quotes on global warming:

"The Earth's climate has always shown natural variation … There is nothing to suggest that any warming we are seeing now is not part of that natural cycle. Every generation has had an apocalyptic myth. The language of climate change is becoming … religious."
- Professor Richard Lindzen, Sunday Times

"Not only is the Kyoto approach to global warming wrong-headed, the climate change establishment's suppression of dissent and criticism is little short of a scandal. The IPCC should be shut down… In Europe, where climate change absolutism is at its strongest, the quasi-religion of greenery in general and the climate change issue in particular have filled the vacuum of organised religion, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy." - Nigel Lawson, Prospect Magazine, November 2005

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

"I consider the concept of a global mean temperature to be somewhat dubious. A single number cannot adequately capture climate change. This number, as I see it, is aimed mostly at politicians and journalists." - Craig Bohren, Professor Emeritus, Pennsylvania State University

"The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming."
- Professor Kirill Kondratyev, Russian Academy of Sciences

"In a decade, America's mighty rivers will have reached the boiling point."
- Edwin Newman, Earth Day 1970


Emeriol said…
Are you saying that you believe that the burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels has no effect on the atmosphere? Have you ever seen smog? What about mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants?
Veeno said…
Nice post Mike- thanks for doing the research. Smog? Emissions? God's plan for nature regulates that over time. Mankind has always taken a stance (perhaps arrogant) that he is more powerful than God. I don't think that a bit of smog will damper God's plan for His planet.

Jesusgreek said…
Regarding smog and emissions, I think they have a far greater effect on us,(cancer?) then they do on the environment. When you consider the size of the Earth, the amount of emission and smog we release into the atmosphere really isn't as great as some would have us to believe. Does it help the environment? No way. But is certainly isn't creating a global warming trend that will cause the earth to burn itself up in the next 100 years. I'm all for cutting down on smog and emission waste but not because it is destorying the enviroment but because it is destroying us.
Emeriol said…
I think you guys may be missing something here... The Earth's biosphere is a system - not a series of separate places. "Nature" and humans aren't separate entities that can be treated as if something done to one doesn't affect the other.

Take the mercury emissions - they don't cause humans problems in the air. Bacteria get a hold of the mercury from the air and change it to a poisonous form. Then the fish eat the bacteria, then the people eat the fish, then their un-born babies get birth defects.

The point is that there is no difference between "us" and "the environment."

There are lots of great reasons to reduce our use of fossil fuels that don't relate to "global warming". So why do you fight it so hard?
Jesusgreek said…
Again, I'm not opposed to reducing our use and reliance on fossil fuels. Anything that will be cleaner and less harmful to man, animals, plants or whatever is fine by me.

My problem comes from the powers that be that are using this myth of global warming to push their own agendas. There is a ton more evidence that what we dump into the environment has a negative effect on humans / animals then on the weather.

True, we could get technical and say that every living organism is the "environment" and that would be true. The difference though between earth / nature and humans / animals is earth was designed to heal herself, we weren't. God uses the weather to bring about the balance this planet needs to sustain life. Our use of fossil fuels will not change that. But God didn't design any way for us to live through our constant pollution.

Great discussion by the way. We should take this show on the road.

One more thing... The new M. Night Shyamalan movie is coming out next summer (The Happening) and it's about a father on the run with his family as they try to survive a massive eviromental crisis. The earth has had enough of man polluting her so she begins to restore her natural balance by wiping us out.

Popular posts from this blog

My "Crazy Love" Small Group Discussion Questions

My Resonse To Tony Nolan

Her Story: Does Satan really exist? Many United Methodists see evil as more subtle.