Thursday, December 16, 2010
Did the Global Warming Hoax Die in Cancun?
By Alan Caruba
If you want to know the core beliefs of those who gathered in Cancun, Mexico, for yet another Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conference, you need look no further than the way one of its days began with a prayer to Ixchel, a Mayan Moon goddess.
The global warmists are essentially pagans for whom the worship of Gaia, an Earth goddess of Greek origin, symbolizes their rejection of the Judeo-Christian values embraced by Western civilization.
It is, by now, a cliché to call environmentalism a religion, but that does not reduce the truth of this observation. For people of faith, however, it did not go unnoticed that the previous conference in Copenhagen closed amidst a huge blizzard that hit that city, nor that President Obama and the American contingent attending the conference had to depart early in order to avoid being unable to return to Washington, D.C. due to a blizzard that closed that city.
In Cancun, as negotiators from nearly 200 countries met to save the Earth from an utterly false “warming”, the seaside Mexican city’s temperatures plunged to a 100-year record low of 54 degrees Fahrenheit!
Amidst the sybaritic parties attended by the delegates, the Cancun conference hammered out demands for further reductions in the so-called greenhouse gases said to threaten the Earth with a huge warming, but Japan where the original Kyoto Protocols for such reductions were initiated opted out and it is worth noting that both India and China had always been exempted from them along with “developing” nations.
In reality, the IPCC conference was the charade designed to engineer a massive transfer of wealth from industrialized nations to those, as often as not, ruled by a variety of despots and authoritarian, corrupt governments that have failed to keep pace with the West for whom the use of “fossil fuels” has marked their economic ascendancy.
Behind the calls for energy reduction is an unspoken and inhuman desire by environmentalists to greatly reduce the world’s population by starving it of the energy it requires to prosper and survive. Along with many coal-fired plants, in both India and China plans are proceeding to introduce increased nuclear energy to benefit their populations of more than a billion each.
In stark contrast, under the Obama administration, the coal and oil industries have found themselves under attack, including a moratorium on all further exploration and extraction of oil in the Gulf of Mexico and off the east and west coasts. Plans for more nuclear production of electricity have been stymied as well.
The original Kyoto Protocols were unanimously rejected by the U.S. Senate in 1997.and in more recent years support for wind and solar production that only exists due to government subsidies and mandates is disappearing in nations that originally signed onto the limits on greenhouse gas emissions. In the U.S. both represent less than three percent of electricity generation.
The Earth has been cooling since 1998 when a new, entirely natural cooling cycle began. The last such cycle of note occurred between 1300 and 1850 and is known as the Little Ice Age. Predictions for the current cycle suggest it too may last several decades or longer.
As for carbon dioxide emissions, there is no evidence they influence the Earth’s overall temperatures. Indeed, carbon dioxide is vital to the growth of all vegetation, crops and forests, and thus to all life on the planet. Nor is there any evidence to support the absurd claim that human beings are causing the Earth to warm. For that you need only look to the low level of sunspots, magnetic storms, of the Sun.
There was no science of any merit to be heard or seen at the Cancun conference, only the massive body of lies generated by the United Nation’s IPCC. In November 2009, just prior to the last conference, the world learned of the machinations of a handful of rogue climate scientists to foist deliberately falsified IPCC “proof” of global warming.
There never was a “consensus” of scientists to support the global warming fraud. What is left is the spectacle of United Nations delegates seeking to impose its control over the world’s sovereign nations through the most audacious scheme ever perpetrated in the name of science.
© Alan Caruba, 2010
Posted by Alan Caruba at 1:21 PM
Labels: coal, global warming, IPCC, nuclear, oil, solar, united nations, wind
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
<aybe you're right, in which case... well, we will produce less carbon. and maybe you're wrong.
Downside of you're right, a cleaner planet in the long run.
But the downside of you are wrong, but if people grasp you beliefs and thus do nothing... we are done as a species.
That is a stupid risk evaluation, not matter how you cut it.
@George: Try to grasp this fundamental truth. You are a moron without the slightest idea of the actual science involved. You are either deliberately uninformed or simply repeating what you've been told is true. Either way, you are wrong.
CO2 is GOOD for the Earth. All vegetation depends on it just as living creatures depend on oxygen. More CO2 means more growth, more crops, more food, healthier forests, etc.
For God's sake read a damn book or visit any one of the climate sites that have links on this blog.
Maybe they should ban dihydrogen monoxide, too. Dangerous stuff. Industrial solvent, and a much greater cause of global warming than CO2.
Hi Mr. Caruba- may I take a stab at Georges nonsence? George- when I see all the morons spending billions of dollars and spreading so called carbon all over the world by flying their jumbo jets all to discuss people's greed for earth killing energy use as little as my family does, maybe, just maybe I might listen. But then again, I probably won't- there are no people on mars, yet that planet's climate is changing too. What causes that?
I am so sick and tired of the tree hugging earth worshippers telling the rest of us what kind of lightbulb to use, what kind of car we can drive and how many squares of toilet paper I can use. I appreciate the earth for that which God created for our habitation. He made us a beautiful home- one in which has it's own way of sustaining everything living.
When I see the Algore's of the gaia worshipping crowd have a monthly electric bill of 69.00 (the highest one I've had) line dry their own laundry, drive a normal working person's vehicle, which may have a larger fuel tank than one one of those so called smart cars (which I can't imagine who'd win in a crash between one and a dump truck) I may at least stop calling them hypocrites.
I have an idea. If you want to cut down on carbon so much- stop breathing.
Thank you Mr. Caruba! God Bless!
Morons such as George are bereft of knowledge of physics, chemistry and math, having only a mantra to chant.
If we actually did manage to "emit" less CO2, and if the temp became 2 degrees Celsius lower, the greenery would die off, and most species would perish from the Earth.
A "clean" planet would consist of only rock.
I have no "beliefs", only hard-nose scientific knowledge.
Wow way to insult someone who actually reads your blog. George isn't wrong, projects that reduce emissions aren't bad, carbon capture projects are actually very good for both the economy and for the planet.
You are right when you say that environmentalism has turned into a fanatical religion (with exactly as much merit as christianity). Personally I reject the idea that the world is going to end but how can you say that programs to reduce the massive amounts of pollution are a bad thing. I don't think we should be giving money to China to prove we've reduced emissions and every one of these climate change talks is about money and are a waste of time.
As for science, there are just as many sites that talk about climate change as a real thing as there are saying it is a hoax. You are spouting as much BS doctrine as George is . Perhaps if you looked at it objectively instead of flat out denying it and actually read some of the opposing research you would look at it a little differently. Yes, CO2 is good for the earth, in the proper quantities. Can you honestly say that the amount put into the air by countries like China and the US are not excessive?
Stop using the term global warming, there is no global warming theory, it has changed, as scientific theory often does when presented with new evidence. The term climate change can just as easily apply to the coldest year on record as it can to the warmest. Now, understand, I am not an environmentalist, I fought the good fight against climate change belief for a long time but to me it seems a lot like denying evolution(a sound scientific theory)simply because you don't like the idea that we are descendant from apes. I reiterate, look at both sides objectively and you might find yourself standing against stupid policy instead of and ever evolving scientific theory.
I'm going to post a link to this blog on my facebook and on my twitter and on my own blog because I think you might benefit from some other perspectives(assuming people actually come and read what you said and wish to post)
It's good to be skeptical but to flat out deny when there is evidence, isn't.
It's water and we both know that, don't we?
Famine, Alan has no problem with insulting anyone who deserves it. People who spout enviro-propaganda as fact fall into that category....
CO2 isn't "pollution". What part of this don't you understand? Nobody is calling for unrestricted "pollution" of our atmosphere, we're calling for a little common sense and the elimination of the financial tools and incentives that have been given to these "climate change" mobsters to screw us with.
Our climate is, and will always be changing. We may have some impact on it, or we may not, but at the moment, my money is on the sun being the largest factor to any major climate changes we'll ever see. As long as we don't toxify our environment with actual "pollution" and manage our resources properly, we will co-exist with this planet just fine. These alarmists stories of instant devastation and widespread destruction of our ecosystem are nothing but the usual scare tactics that we've seen so many times before. I've seen dozens of similar hysteria campaigns in my lifetime, and they have all proven to be nothing but scams.
Corruption and ignorance are our greatest enemies.
"Stop using the term global warming, there is no global warming theory.."
The reason there is no "global warming" is because those advocating it, the UN, Al Gore, scores of environmental organizations, the media, et cetera, were revealed to be liars when the emails of the IPCC "scientists" demonstrated they were engaged in a deliberate hoax.
And, yes, there is and always have been "climate change." That doesn't mean that humans have anything to do with it.
Am I angry at having lived with three decades of lies? Yes.
If one posts here, they had better be prepared to be called out when they, too, lie.
CO2 may not be pollution in normal quantities but industry in the US and China are producing massive quantities of it and there are different ideas or models of what that is doing to the atmosphere and to the planet in general. What do you think composes most of the smog in major centers? The answer is industrial produced CO2.
Now as I said before, I am not an environmentalist and I don't believe in the end of the world. I am a skeptic who reads as much as I can on a subject before I make a conclusion. That said, this is too complicated of an issue to be covered by mere common sense. This is something that even the scientific community cannot fully agree on so I don't think we should write it off as a hoax. We simply don't know enough. I don't like my govt. spending millions in order to appease the United Abominations any more than you do and I stand against wasting money on ineffectual policy that is really only meant to garner more votes and look good in the eyes of the media but I don't think you can dismiss the entire theory of climate change out of hand.
Corruption and ignorance ARE our greatest enemies. No doubt. But that works for both sides of this debate. No one knows enough to say for sure. So why not look at each project aimed at reducing emissions and determine if they are cost effective and for the good of the economy.
You all seem to be ignoring the fact that this isn't just aimed at CO2, there are many emissions that are produced industrially which are not as beneficial as CO2. And you seem to be ignoring the massive amount being produced.
And lastly, insulting someone is not the way to bring them to your frame of mind. Calling George a moron doesn't make him amenable to your perspective, it entrenches him further into his own. If you want the world to see the truth that you see then you have to be reasonable and approach people with reason. Not with insults.
@Famine: I strongly agree with your statement. Science is always evolving. Just because we do not currently see any negative results or possible future problems,does not mean that there is absolutely no potential for future harm. The reason science is always evolving is because we do not know everything.
I do not see any harm in CO2 emissions. I do however know that if we breath too high of a concentration of oxygen it is harmful. This may be true of CO2 for plants. This is just an example.
While I agree that there is probably nothing harmful about CO2 emissions, I think that reducing volumes is absolutely not harmful.
Why not err on the side of caution. It hurts nothing to reduce.
Read this carefully.
Then do me the favor of NOT lecturing me. I am 73 years old. I have been a book reviewer for 50 of those years so I know a hell of a lot more than you.
When I call someone a moron, it is because they have demonstrated it beyond any doubt.
Lastly, this is MY blog. You are here--voluntarily--as a guest. Keep that in mind.
@Plaid: Read my last response to Famine as it applies to you.
For the record, many experiments have demonstrated that the more CO2one makes available to plants, the more they grow.
If you think too much oxygen might be bad for you, try going without it for five minutes.
If you do not know the science, merely SPECULATING about it is foolish.
@Alan: Excellent defense of your article.
I think only a brain washed Leftist robot can still believe there is such a thing as "Global Warming" and that CO2 is a "air pollution."
Some day in future the history books will have a chapter titled, "The Great Global Warming Hoax" and students will wonder how anyone was stupid enough to buy that particular snake oil.
It was obvious that so-called global warming, as presented by the U.N. and outlined in the Kyoto accords, was wrong from the beginning. Why? If failed the test of history.
Historically the world has warmed and cooled continually throughout time. A thousand years ago the Earth was substantial warmer than it is today. Greenland really was Green and the Norse settlers maintained an agricultural lifestyle there for hundreds of years, just as they did in Norway, The historical records of their farming practices and harvests still exist today to prove it.
The Earth cooled and they had to leave or adopt the lifestyle of the eskimos, which they were unwiling to do and sailed back to Iceland.
We also know from the historical records that none of the terrible things they have been predicting occured then. If it didn't happen then, when the world was substantiall warmer, why should we believe it will occur now?
This cycle is caused by the sun. It was then, and it is now. We are entering a cooling period and that is also caused by the sun.
All else is claptrap.
Greenhouse operators enrich the CO2 to 5+ times the amount in our atmosphere, to make the plants grow much faster and healthier.
In any event, carbon dioxide is a trace gas in our atmosphere, and at 10 times as much, it would still be a trace gas.
CO2 has nothing to do with smog, nothing at all. People who have no knowledge of chemistry.
The word "SMOG": SMoke + fOG = SMOG.
CO, carbon monoxide, is a pollutant. It can occur naturally from natural forest or grass fires when the fire consumes oxygen faster than it can get to the fire, resulting in incomplete combustion of the carbon in the wood or grass.
Hydrocarbons also become smog. Aromatic hydrocarbons, and lots of them, are emitted by trees which have needles instead of leaves, the lovely scent of pine trees are an example. There are also a number of leaved trees which emit hydrocarbons.
Famine, the primary cause of SMOG in our cities is NOT CO2, it is (was) automobile exhaust/hydrocarbon emissions, composed primarily of un-combusted gasoline from filling station fumes and poorly tuned engines. That is why when we have an air quality alert in our city, they ask us to avoid driving or filling up until after it subsides.
The SMOG levels in most American cities are a fraction of what they used to be, due to the introduction of vapor recovery devices on pumps and fuel tanks, catalytic converters, and modern emission controls. When catalytic converters and emission control systems were introduced, they were praised heavily as the solution to SMOG, because they reduce emissions to little but CO2 and water vapor. There are still SMOG problems in our larger cities, but the primary sources remain un-combusted hydrocarbons. Those sources are being identified and addressed....
This CO2 scam is just that. A scam. It's just another excuse to tax us and generate profits for the perpetrators. We were being sold a bill of goods, and thanks to sponges like you who soak up and spew out the propaganda you're being fed, we came very close to being TAXED to death over it. Wake up man ...
Alan, if I may, and I know I'm coming in late here.
Yes, CO2 is a trace gas, a very minor trace gas, at 390PPM or around 0.039% of that total atmosphere, in fact around as low as it has ever been since the formation of Planet Earth.
If CO2 is but the most minor of trace gases, those other gases are even tinier indeed.
The largest of the Greenhouse gases is water vapor, which is 50 times greater than for CO2, and yes, we do call them clouds, and consider this.
Water vapor is H2O and those clouds float up there in the sky. CO2 is more than three times heavier than H2O, so tell me how does it get way out there to cause Climate Change/Global Warming.
As it is emitted it is hot and rises. As it rises it cools in the Atmosphere at the rate of 1.5C per 1000 metres. As it cools, then, being heavier than air, you tell me where it goes. It sinks back to the surface where every growing thing consumes that CO2 from the air, fixing the Carbon element into the plant, and emitting Oxygen.
Famine mentioned how Carbon capture projects are good if they take the Carbon (Dioxide CO2) out of the air. Consider this.
Just to produce the electricity we all use, an amount of 1 billion tons of coal is burned each year. CO2 is emitted at the rate of 2.86 tons for every one ton of coal burned.
Add in the emissions from Natural Gas fired power plants, and the yearly CO2 emissions come in at 3.5 Billion tons of CO2.
How big is the hole in the ground needed to hold all that, and that is just for one year.
Carbon capture and storage is a dream that will NEVER be realised on the scale required.
Alan, sorry to take so much space here.
In addition to the above I also neglected to mention that CO2 is being emitted from the surface of the Planet at around 40 to 50 Billion tons each year, and yet it's still only 0.039% of the total Atmosphere.
@TonyfromOz: You are always welcome here!
The alarmists want to kill my forestry business by denying us biomass markets without which I will be unable to practice excellent forestry.
Here's my blog on forest biomass: http://northquabbinforestry.com/2010/12/14/forest-biomass-markets-promote-great-forestry/
The "Neo-Luddites" don't like biomass: http://www.maforests.org/BioCheck.pdf
The Luddites distort everything.
We'll know within a few months if MA DOER is going to pass job killing anti-biomass regulations or allow us practicing foresters to continue to our work.
Keep up the good work Alan!
Mike Leonard, Consulting Forester
@Mike. Forestry is one of the least understood and most maligned profession these days with tree-huggers who know nothing about proper forest management.
Hope you see happier days.
Post a Comment