Confessions of a Global Warming denier

Hello, my name is Reed. I’m a global warming denier. They say admitting it is the first step. Unfortunately, I am not interested in getting “healed.” I have long been a skeptic of the idea that we have anything to do with global climate change, but now it looks like science is catching up with me.

First, let me say that the main reason I’m addressing this now is because of a conversation I had with a close friend of mine last week. (You know who you are!) He voted for Obama and I was asking him how he thought things were going now that we’re $1 trillion in debt. That led to a discussion of the recent cap and trade bill making its way through Congress. (for a detailed discussion on “cap and trade,” see my blog “2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved.”) He told me he was glad that we were finally doing something about the global warming problem. He believes global warming is “settled science.”

So let me tell you where I stand. First, I’m not convinced the earth is warming. Second, I’m not convinced that if it is warming, people have anything to do with it, or that we could change it even if we’re not causing it. Some of my beliefs are what I consider to be simple common sense and others are science-based. For example, I have read in my history books about an ice age. I wasn’t here when it happened but I believe it did happen. Clearly, now, we are not in an ice age. Right? So what were the man-made devices or activities that substantially warmed the planet? Any suggestions? I presume the earth cooled and warmed on its own. I think that’s reasonable.

Is it reasonable to blame vehicle emissions for global warming? We are told that our vehicles emit gasses which pollute the atmosphere and enhance the “greenhouse effect” which we are told keeps us all warm and toasty in a cold, cruel world. Too much emissions – too much “greenhouse effect.” Thus, global warming. Ok, so cars have been around for a little more than 100 years. No doubt, that’s a lot of emissions. But is there anything in nature which could compare to the amount of emissions the automobile has generated? How about volcanoes? A quick perusal of Wikipedia shows devastating effects on the earth from volcanoes, especially over the last century. According to an article by the Environmental Defense Fund, in 2004, US cars emitted 314 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Ok, that doesn’t include all the cars on the earth, and it apparently doesn’t include commercial vehicles, but it’s a good place to start.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, volcanoes account for 130 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. Well, that’s not very comparable to cars, is it. Unless you consider the fact that there have been volcanoes on the earth far longer than there have been cars. In 1991, Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Phillipines. This was an unusually catastrophic eruption. It was so devastating that the global temperature dropped .5°-.6° C in the northern hemisphere from 1991-1993 (so much for global warming!). This was a result of the volcanic ash that covered over 100 miles, 10 billion tons of magma, and 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide. You know, the same sulfur dioxide that creates the acid rain you’ve heard so much about. Yeah, we didn’t invent it, the earth did!

So here you have all these volcanoes blowing all this gunk into the air for hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of years. But WE are the biggest polluters on the planet. Whatever. . .

But I’m told that global warming is “settled science” and so far I’ve just given you my opinion. Let’s see what science has to say about it. The general respected authority on the subject is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations project. (Ok, you just lost me!) Trying to read one of their reports will make your head spin. Trust me. . . I know. I have to say though that it looks like they are making a variety of assumptions. I don’t understand why things are “likely” or “very likely.” It seems they really don’t KNOW anything. They have charts showing global temperatures shooting up dramatically.

The much bally-hooed hockey stick

The much bally-hooed hockey stick

In Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” he called this the “hockey stick.” After 1950, it shoots through the roof. But wait, didn’t we just learn that the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo reduced global temperatures?!? Where’s this in the hockey stick?

According to the CATO Institue, that’s not the only problem with the IPCC’s assertions. We now have some super-sophisticated instrumentation. Apparently, we now have a network of weather balloons, as well as satellite technology which are making their own measurements. The IPCC measured “surface temperatures” and the balloons and satellites measured temps in the lower atmosphere, between 5,000 and 30,000 feet. According to this report, “a distinguished panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded there is a real disparity between the reported surface warming and the temperature trends measured in the atmosphere above.” Oh really? Tell me more! “The surface temperature record shows a warming rate of about 0.17 degrees Celsius (0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 1979. . .Neither annual satellite nor balloon trends differ significantly from zero since the satellite record started in 1979.” Wow! Did you hear that? No significant difference! Hmmmm. Who’s right? The people at the IPCC who are making estimations and projections or the instruments. It’s a mystery!

But you absolutely have to read this. In an article in the National Post (a Canadian newspaper, you don’t think you’d read this in an American paper do you?), apparently it’s over! Yup, don’t worry, there won’t be any more global warming for another 10 years. Maybe more! (Read that:  “We don’t really know, actually!”) A German team of climatologists using the UN super computers (I love the irony) entered data on ocean circulation cycles and voila! No more global warming! Now, of course, they are all trying to back-pedal and say that it is completely expected that there would be a plateau before more exponential growth. But that is a little far-fetched. No one is anticipating this to stop, that’s why they’re scrambling to pass as much legislation as possible before the stink hits the fan and everyone wakes up and realizes it was all just a scam to get us to open our wallets.

For the record, here’s where I stand. This earth is a gift from God and we have an obligation to be good stewards of it. That means we shouldn’t pollute it, nor should we take it for granted. So don’t be disrespectful to the earth. I also believe the earth is far more powerful and self-sufficient than we can ever imagine. It has been here long before us and will be here long after us. The idea that we have any ability to affect it globally is vanity. We can pollute our own areas, like rivers, roads, etc., without affecting all the other places in the world.

The most important point to me is the people who are trying to convince us of this don’t simply want us to agree with them, they want us to change our lifestyles. They are trying to use our good nature to guilt us into giving up some of our freedoms. I find that offensive! Not only that, but you aren’t allowed to disagree with them. I used the term “denier” because that’s what I’ve been called. Now I’m no better than a holocaust denier. There’s something terribly wrong with that. Why should I trust these idiots! Aren’t they the same people who tried to tell us in 1979 that there was a coming ICE AGE!!!

Time warns of a coming ice age in 1979

Time warns of a coming ice age in 1979

If I am a global warming denier, I’m in good company. 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition stating, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses 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” Still doesn’t sound like “settled science” to me.

Oh and one more thing (you know I’d save the best for last). Remember at the beginning of this when I said the big problem was the “greenhouse gases” trapping heat in the atmosphere? Guess what. That’s factually not true. Most of the global warming alarmists point to carbon dioxide as the big offender. They say the more carbon dioxide we emit into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet is getting. According to a report at scienceandpublicpolicy.org, “In all seven glacial and interglacial cycles, the reported changes in CO2 and CH4 lagged the temperature changes and could not, therefore, have caused them (66).” Did you get that? Global warming CAUSES a rise in CO2, not the other way around! So the entire premise of “greenhouse gases” causing global warming is at best suspect, and at worst a lie!

All I’m trying to say is that the issue is clearly far from settled and the idea that we have to act now is alarmist. I, for one, will not fall in line without some hard evidence.

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under politics, Uncategorized

7 responses to “Confessions of a Global Warming denier

  1. You just don’t get it, do you? If they pass Cap & Trade now they can claim it worked beyond their wildest imaginations and they will make a giant statue of the green god billionaire Al Gore and all the world will worship at his humongous fat feet. Don’t see this is perfect. First, destroy the credibility of all these scientists, pass C&T, and reap the benefits. Power, glory, and re-election for all Democrats. It’s sheer genius.

  2. reedkeys

    Oh, I get it, I get it. It’s not about the truth, it’s about propping each other up to bolster they fallacious arguments. That’s why they give each other such high awards like the Nobel awards. Certainly if a Nobel laureate says the globe is getting warmer, who could argue with him.

  3. Don

    Hogwash! Based on a fact in your own blog, US autos alone emit nearly 3 times the carbon dioxide per year than all the volcanoes on earth. Do you seriously believe the cumulative effect of 3 times the normal output from volcanoes will have no affect on the global climate over time? Puh-lease…

    The climate is cooling? Bah! Any fool can take snipets of data and use them to bolster an agenda. Check the Wikipedia entry on “average global temperature” for a less “biased” picture.

    Your claim that the 1979 Time article “The Cooling of America” warns of a coming ice age is blatantly false. I read the article and did not see any mention of an ice age, let alone any credible evidence to support your claim.

    Your “big finalie” is also without merit. While it is generally accepted that warming does release more carbon dioxide, that does not in any way prove the reverse untrue (carbon dioxide causes warming).

    Although I found nothing in your blog remotely convincing, and, despite my personal belief that global warming is not only real– but a reality we do indeed bear some responsibility for, I must concede that any science “fact” is not beyond criticism.

  4. reedkeys

    As you point out, any snippet of data can be used to bolster an argument. The carbon dioxide statistics were the worst I could find just so I didn’t play favorites. The point was that even though the cars emit more than the volcanoes, volcanoes spew so much more than CO2. And they have been doing it for far longer than cars have. If there is any one culprit to pin the polluting of the planet on, it would be the volcanoes, hands down.

    I don’t see where I said the earth is cooling. All I said was that there was one study I cited to show that there was no statistical difference in atmospheric temperatures and another that projects there won’t be any discernible warming. It appears the UN’s stats may have been distorted somehow. Perhaps because they are making “guesses” about the difference in temps in certain urban areas compared to more rural areas. Whenever you start tinkering with the numbers, they’re not real numbers.

    As far as the Time article is concerned, yes, I did post the wrong cover. I thought I found the right one but apparently the ice age story wasn’t on the cover. Here’s the link to the Time article on the ice age:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

    Newsweek also ran one in 1975, but I can’t find it on their website, even though there are reprints all over the internet.

    Yes, after I wrote that warming causes CO2, I realized I may have been overstating it. All we know for sure is that when temperatures change, CO2 lags temperature change. It doesn’t prove causation one way or the other. But CO2 clearly doesn’t cause temperature either change either.

    As you noted, though, my main point was to show that these “facts” aren’t even being considered when they are trying to take billions of dollars out of our pockets. Why?!? Why not have a healthy debate and let us all decide on our own? Let’s let all the facts in. Instead, Al Gore is running around talking about people like me as “deniers” assuming we’re just a bunch of know-nothings. I have very good reasons for doubting the global warming theories and I hope everyone just takes a breath before we commit ourselves to, as Obama said, “skyrocketing” energy bills!

  5. Don

    When you compare volcano to auto emissions, consider your own words with regards to the earth being “powerful and self sufficient”. The earth is indeed resilient in that it has the capacity to absorb a certain amount of CO2 to help mitigate temperature variation. However, what autos introduce is a 300% increase in emissions over volcanoes… I don’t know how much CO2 the earth can comfortably absorb, but (pardon my analogy) if you spent 3 times what you normally spend from this day forward, would that not have an adverse effect on your financial health?

    I love a good debate as much as the next guy, but some of your “facts” are mearly short term statistical anomalies that convenienly run counter to the long term trend. Policy on global warming should not be decided in a “court of law” where simply interjecting reasonable doubt is enough to free the criminal. This is far too important. Study the topic with an open mind my friend, instead of a conservative agenda.

    I mentioned to Cheryl (my wife for those who don’t know me) that I was commenting on your global warming blog and she said to tell you you are not a “free thinker”. Couldn’t help but to recognize the irony in that statement…

  6. reedkeys

    You keep trying to hoist me by my own petard. So let’s talk car emissions. The website I took that statistic from is the Environmental Defense Fund. The EDF, “played a key role in highlighting the urgency of global warming.” If anyone has an agenda, it’s them. No global warming, no job. I’m not sure where they their information from, but I used it anyway. After reviewing the stats again, I’m a bit confused. The EDF is offering stats on CO2, carbon dioxide. I always thought cars emitted primarily CO, carbon monoxide. I’m not saying cars can’t emit CO2 but I think the higher concentration is of CO. I’m not sure why or how the EDF chose CO2 for their study. I did find a study from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. They estimate (and remember, these are just estimates since we can’t measure emissions coming from every car all the time, just as the volcano stats are just estimates) CO emissions at 88.25 million short tons in 2007. BTW, that’s the lowest on record! Since 1970, when we started keeping track, it has steadily declined from its initial high of over 200 million short tons. For some reason, the BTS only tracked CO numbers, not CO2. So, yes, for many years, we did beat the volcanoes. (For the record, short tons are more than metric tons. So if volcanoes emit 130 million metric tons, that’s about 143 million short tons.) But for many more years than that, the volcanoes had a monopoly. I understand the cars, COULD have been the tipping point, but I’m still not convinced. Why such a disparity in the stats?

    All I’m trying to say is that there are a lot of varying statistics as well as “estimates” about what’s going on. If someone could point out to me any time in human history where man has actually been able to tame the earth or its climate, I might start believing in the global warming theory (OK, NOT!). But it has never happened before and I’m not buying it now. As I pointed out, specifically since those who propose it’s existence are being quite duplicitous about the stats. Al Gore’s Academy Award-winning movie was riddled with altered “facts” to drive the point home.

    This IS a court of law and reasonable doubt is enough to free the criminal, since I’m the one who’s being criminalized. It is only “too important an issue” if it’s actually true. I have not seen one shred of “evidence” to suggest we have anything to do with the globe warming if it in fact is actually warming.

    I freely admit to a conservative bias, no doubt. There’s no hiding that. But I believe I am a free thinker in that I don’t believe what I’m told unless I can back it up with facts. Tell Cheryl she’s so open minded her brains leaked out! JK LOL! Talk to ya soon!

  7. Don

    If man were able to tame the earth’s climate, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s