Monday, August 10, 2009

Global Warming, Unicorns, and Attractive Fat People



Question: What do global warming, unicorns, and attractive fat people have in common?

Answer: They don’t exist, duh.

To be fair unicorns might actually exist in a parallel universe where the rivers run deep with milk chocolate and jelly beans fall from the sky… and I’ve also heard tales of a deviant societal sub-culture dubbed “chubby chasers” to whom fat people actually are attractive (barf)… but global warming? No, I can tell you with the utmost certainty that global warming most definitely does not exist.

I know I know, we all saw Al Gore’s academy award winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, and when you see something in a documentary it must be true, right? Wrong. Not only is the earth's atmosphere not warming but scientific evidence shows that it’s actually cooling (according to highly accurate satellite-based temperature measurements the earth’s atmosphere has cooled by 0.13° Celsius since 1979). Granted if you look back a little further the atmosphere has gotten a little warmer (the same atmospheric temperature measurements show an increase of 0.54° Celsius from 1881 to 1993). But nearly 70 percent of the warming of this entire time period — 0.37° Celsius —occurred in the first half of the record — before the period of the greatest build-up of greenhouse gases. So even though there was a nominal amount of warming that took place over the past century it likely had more to do with things like fluctuations in solar activity, El Niño weather patterns, and volcanic activity, than it did a buildup of carbon dioxide. And assuming CO2 had any effect at all the vast majority of the earth’s CO2 is generated naturally, which means the likely effect of all human activity is effectively zero. Therefore the phenomenon which has come to be known as “global warming” is in all likelihood nothing more than an elaborate hoax concocted by liberal politicians in an effort to regulate of all things the weather. Or to put it more simply global warming is a lie.

Hell, you don’t have to believe me. Log on to the internet and do a search for a British documentary titled, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Unlike Al Gore’s emotional documentary this film is based on sound scientific evidence and includes interviews with actual climate scientists. It does a great job rebuking the major arguments put forth in Gore’s documentary and clearly illustrates that any fluctuations in the earth’s atmospheric temperature are the result of a natural cycle of climate fluctuation, and have little or nothing to do with man’s growing carbon footprint.

Still don’t believe me? Look, I can’t make you smarter but I can enlighten you with a more scientific point of view. Here’s the deal: there is absolutely no scientific proof whatsoever that any current or future warming in the atmosphere is being caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. This conclusion is nothing more than a politically driven, half-baked hypothesis. In Gore’s film, he presents evidence found in research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he claims is proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. However, ice core records from the past 650,000 years show exactly the opposite - that temperature increases have preceded (not resulted from) increases in CO2, and by hundreds of years. The warmer periods of the earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels, meaning that a rise in carbon dioxide follows a rise in temperature, rather than vice versa. This evidence suggests that the warming of the oceans is an important source (not result) of the rise in atmospheric CO2. And as the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is therefore far more important than CO2. Yet the current computer climate models (which Gore’s dire predictions of future warming are based on) do not accurately understand the role of water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century. For example after the Second World War, when there was incidentally a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, global temperatures actually fell for four decades following 1940. This suggests that any current warming is simply a part of the natural cycle of climate fluctuation that’s been traced back almost a million years. Let’s take a quick look back in history to help illustrate this point. First there was the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops. Then there was the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Global warming advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. Sorry greenies, but the hockey-stick graph has since been thoroughly discredited by scientific evidence.

I agree that Gore’s documentary was very convincing in its hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon which has the potential to kill us all and end humanity, but if you look at the individual tenets of his hypothesis they can all be discredited with science. Hollywood and the academy voters may have been duped but let’s not buy into the hype people. Science proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the causes of any global warming are mostly if not entirely natural. Therefore there’s nothing anyone can do stop it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability, which means all schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently being pushed by the IPCC and the various world governments will amount to nothing more than an exercise in futility. Besides could someone please explain to me how a warmer climate will be a bad thing? Shit, most economists actually argue that the opposite is true - that warming will produce a net benefit, with increases in incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? I can here you greenies whining as I write this. But what about the rising sea levels and the fact that the continents will eventually be under water if we don’t do something to stop it? Listen greenies - the much feared rise in sea levels clearly has very little to do with short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea level increases has been steady since the last ice age, over 10,000 years ago. Bottom line the sea levels are going to continue to rise whether we like it or not. It really couldn’t matter less if you drive a huge, gas-guzzling SUV or a little, shit-box Prius. So dump the clown car and deal with it.

All kidding aside the major problem I have with global warming is much broader than the politically corrupt Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the vast army of gullible drones who lap up Al Gore’s Kool-Aid then ask for more. The main problem I have can be summed with a single, fundamental question. Why should we as a human race devote our limited resources to what is essentially a non–issue, while we ignore the real problems the world faces: famine, disease, human rights violations, financial turmoil, and terrorism – not to mention a crazy, midget dictator who’s cooking up nuclear bombs as I type. And are we even properly prepared to deal with natural disasters or pandemics that could wipe out all or most of the world’s population? If recent history is any indication we are not. Yet Al Gore, who is not a climatologist, a meteorologist, an astronomer, or a scientist of any kind, advocates squandering away our limited resources on a fashionable issue, rather than concentrating on earth’s real problems.

Or maybe science is wrong, Al Gore’s right, and we are on a destructive path to the end of the world and humanity as we know it. So what? Recent Gallup Polls show that 95% of the world’s population believes in “God”. And God created this world, right? So when it’s all used up and gone why can’t He just start over and create another one? And perhaps world version 2.0 could even include unicorns and attractive fat people? Where’s your faith, people? I’m just saying.

2 comments:

Bhuvan Chand said...

It never ceases to amaze how the simple mention of global warming in a news story sets off a tsunami of rhetoric. It generally comes from a very vocal minority that would go to its grave swearing that the sum total of climate science is a liberal plot to enrich Al Gore. Alternately, we are told the Martian ice caps are melting, proof that solar radiation and sunspot cycles — and not greenhouse gases — are the cause of planetary warmups.

John Q said...

"John" - if you are going to post something hurtful about my family at least be man enough to not post it anonymously. You obviously know how to find me - let's talk face to face.