For over a decade now, we have been told that humans are causing global warming. From celebrities, to politicians, to major media outlets, everywhere we turned we were being told that we are responsible for what's eventually going to cause apocalyptic scenarios via weather catastrophes around the world. For over a decade, we were lectured about our horrible wrong-doings ad nauseum. Anyone who disagreed or challenged the theory on Anthropogenic Global Warming was considered a "right wing nut" or a Big Oil supporter.
But the tides are now beginning to change, and it's not because the sea levels are rising. Over the last 5 years or so there have been many scientific findings that contradict the "consensus" of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. Many reputable scientists and climatologists who do not receive any kind of funding to perform their investigations have basically proven that Anthropogenic Global Warming is indeed a hoax.
So what are these findings, you may ask? Most of you have probably already seen Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth", and most of you have surely heard by now about all the exaggerations and outright lies Gore tried to pass off on us. While a lot of Anthropogenic Global Warming supporters will instantly dismiss anything Gore said that was false by chalking it up to him "just being a politician", those lies and exaggerations are at the very core of the entire basis behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory. These are issues that should not be dismissed simply because a politician was spitting them out, but rather addressed, disected, and debated; and I'm going to show you why.
Global Warming Myth #1: The CO2 Debate
The theory is that high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere cause the earth to heat up. This is true, but only to a certain degree. What a lot of people fail to realize is that carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas, compared to water vapor which makes up 97% of the atmospheric greenhouse gases. The carbon dioxide levels in earth's atmosphere have nearly doubled since the pre-industrial era. Though this may sound shocking at first, when the numbers are revealed it is a far less impressive statistic. The CO2 levels went from .02%, to a mere .038% today. To imply that this tiny of an increase would cause catastrophic events is absurd considering the CO2 levels have been up to 10 times as high in past eras without any significant weather-related destruction occuring.
Within the last couple of years, independent climatologists taking ice core samples in Antarctica have discovered that in past climate changes, the carbon dioxide levels increased after a warming period, not before. Additionally, the warming rate between 1975 and 1998 was the same as it was between 1860-1880 and 1910-1940. What does this mean? Well, if high CO2 emissions cause global warming, then the warming period between 1975 and 1998 would have had an immense influence from the peak of the industrial era between 1940 and 1970, when factories polluted the air with no regard and no knowledge of the Greenhouse Effect, and big gas-guzzling cars with no emission exhaust control were on the roads, not to mention the trains. But then why was it only as warm as it was in the earlier time periods, before man had any means of polluting the air with CO2 emissions? It's a mystery...
Now, with all this said, that is not to say that we should continue to pollute the earth with CO2 emissions. Rather, I am simply pointing out the over-exaggeration on how much of an impact CO2 actually has on Global Warming. I think it would be great if we could not be dependent on fossil feuls anymore, and I support the concept to the fullest.
Global Warming Myth #2: The Sun
It seems nobody pays attention to poor old Sun. Ever since this theory emerged everyone has been convinced that we, the humans, are the ones in control of our weather. When have you ever heard anyone mention the Sun while trying to explain Global Warming? Shouldn't that be one of the first things you discuss? The Sun, after all, is virtually 99% responsible for all of the weather on earth. Many researchers have recently found that sun spot activity and solar flares are often in correlation with major weather disasters that happen here on earth like the tsunami that hit Indonesia, as well as Hurricane Katrina.
Scientists who study the sun have proven that the sun has had significant increased activity over the last 100 years as compared the 2 or 3 centuries before it. Is it a coincidence that we have also experienced this global warming phenomenon for just about the last 100 years? Solar flares have a very heavy impact on our climate, and our sun has been exhibiting increased solar flares. We have also seen a decrease in sunspots. Less sunspots equates to more heat being emitted.
As I explained earlier, water vapor is by far the most prominent greenhouse gas. Bearing in mind that the sun is exhibiting increased solar flares and decreased sunspots, one would assume that there would be at least a decent amount of extra heat reaching earth. That being said, as the heat reaches the earth and hits the 75% that is covered by water, the water then begins to warm up (not to mention the increased underwater volcanic activity also playing a major contributing factor, which is a whole other subject in itself) . As the water warms up, water vapor is released into the atmosphere and adds to the greenhouse effect, and in turn causes more heat to be trapped in, and the cycle continues to repeat until the sun has "cooled off" a little. Adding to this, as the water heats up, it increases the likelihood of a hurricane or tsunami forming, as these weather phenomenons feed off of warm waters. So why is this increased activity occurring with our Sun? Simple; it's called a solar cycle. There is also evidence that shows that Mars is experiencing a warming period as well, who or what could be causing that?
Global Warming Myth #3: The Polar Bears
Do you remember watching Al Gore's heart-breaking computer generated rendition of a poor little polar bear stuck on a tiny little patch of ice with nowhere to go? That image was used as a classic propoganda technique to fool the viewer into feeling guilty. The truth is, Al Gore likely heard about a bad arctic storm that had happened around that time that killed 4 polar bears, and decided to run with it. Even now, we still see commercials on TV about the polar bears that are supposedly dying off in "vast numbers". But are these polar bears really dying off? And what are these "vast numbers"? The answer is no, and there are no "vast numbers".
While there are a few instances of polar bears struggling in the arctic, this is part of nature and strays from the fact that the majority of polar bears around the world are thriving. In fact, the population of polar bears has more than doubled since the 1950s. Polar bears are built to swim 60 miles without taking a break. Icebergs have been melting and expanding since the dawn of time, and polar bears have learned to adapt. The polar bears who didn't adapt, died off, and thus evolution ran its course. This is part of nature and you should not feel guilty or feel like you are to blame for it. Those polar bears will just migrate to more suitable environments, if they haven't done so already, or natural selection will do its deed. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that mankind has any effect on the melting of glaciers and icebergs, or that polar bears are dying off at any kind of alarming rate. Don't fall for the guilt trip.
Global Warming Myth #4: The Melting of the Ice Caps and Glaciers
Many supporters of Anthropogenic Global Warming insist that the glaciers and ice caps are melting and breaking off at alarming rates. This, too, is an inflated and over-exaggerated claim. What these people fail to tell you, or maybe realize altogether, is that glaciers and ice caps constantly go through periods of melting and breaking off, and that most of the glaciers (mostly in the Southern Hemisphere) are actually continuing to expand.
Had we had cameras, newspapers, and media outlets available all around the world for longer than just the last 30-40 years, this would be common knowledge. The reason it seems like such an issue today is because we have the means to document, record, film, and spread the word about these glaciers breaking off. One would have to be pretty naive to believe this is only just a recent occurrence. It's comparable to a person who argues that murder is more prominent in today's day and age than it was 100 years ago. There have always been senseless murders, probably moreso in simpler times than now, but it only seems worse today because we have so many media outlets to report them, and populations are so much more dense.
Global Warming Myth #5: Warming or Cooling?
Did you know that the earth has actually been cooling off for the last 7 years? Probably not; because that is not something you are going to hear on the news. Though it is a proven fact, just give it a quick search and see for yourself. It's very convenient that even today when people try to argue that humans are causing global warming, they only tell you about the warm years. Well, the warm years are long gone.
In the majority of the world, temperatures have been dropping. Ice bergs and glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere are expanding. States in America that rarely see snow all winter are now seeing snow storms as early as November and October. What does this mean? A large number of scientists and climatologists who disagree with the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory are claiming that we are in fact experiencing the beginning stages of a cooling period, or possibly even a mini-Ice Age. According to ice core samples, in past Ice Ages and cooling periods, the earth and its atmosphere has exhibited eerily similar traits as what we are seeing today. Does this prove we are about to go into another Ice Age or cooling period? No, but it definitely condradicts the original theory that the earth is warming up, and that is the main point.
Global Warming Myth #6: Computer Simulations and Jaded Research
A great way to get people to believe in a theory is to label it as a "consensus" or show fear-mongering apocalyptic scenarios via computer simulation. Firstly, the consensus arguement has been debunked several times over. However, when it does it rarely gets any big media coverage. Some of the big media outlets like Fox News will report on these as they go along with what Fox News has been saying all along. You won't see CNN or ABC report on these because they contradict what those media outlets generally promote. You can find several articles online in their news archives, but you will likely never see them reported on television or put on the front page of their website.
Science isn't based on consensus. That's simply not how science works, that's pretty much how democracy works and by making science into a more democratic-like topic, it gets the average Joe interested and swayable. The very foundation of science lies on questioning, re-examining, and hypothesizing different theories. It's not about getting the most votes and proclaiming that the theory with the most votes has moved from a theory to a fact, especially when there are countless incentives for a scientist to vote in favor of said theory. It is widely known in the scientific community that if you openly support the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, you are much, much more likely to recieve government grants to perform your work, even if that work has nothing to do with global warming. Scientists who question or outright deny the existence of Anthropogenic Global Warming are shunned and labeled as outcasts and Big Oil supporters. There are also several surveys you can find online that contradict the jaded IPCC "consensus". One survey even has 31,000 scientists in it that either do not believe in AGW all together, or have no opinion one way or the other.
As for the computer simulations, anyone can make a computer simulation play out the way they want simply by adding or removing variables when writing the program. It is hardly even considered a debate anymore that the computer simulations you saw in "An Inconvenient Truth", as well as the end of the world scenarios regarding Global Warming that you often see on the Discovery Channel and TLC, are nothing but fear-driven hysteria. These simulations are manipulated in order to make their points valid. They do not take into account several important variables that occur in nature that would otherwise produce different results. While these scenarios are no d0ubt a possibility, they are not scenarios that are likely to occur, especially anytime in the near future.
Why Lie about Global Warming?
The question begs to be answered, why would they lie about this? And I wish I had the real answer, but all we can do is guess, because it's going to be a long time before the supporters finally admit that they were wrong. Obviously it seems that for most of the supporters, they may not have purposely lied but rather were misinformed. I think even if some of them were outright lying, that they did it with the good intentions on changing people's attitude about how they treat the environment, which in my opinion is not too big of a deal, and I almost want to say that the ends justified the means in this aspect.
However, Al Gore clearly has profited immensely off of this whole ordeal. Having won a Nobel Peace Prize, Gore has already seen ultimate success in his agenda. Add in the fact that he is the vice-president of his carbon footprint company that takes money from celebrities so they don't feel guilty for their private jets, Hummers, and gigantic energy wasting mansions, along with the popularity of his film, "An Inconvenient Truth", and it becomes apparent what Al Gore's biggest motives were. Al Gore has made a fortune by spouting out false facts and half-truths about a theory that is now looking more and more like a hoax every year that goes by. In addition, many scientists recieved free funding from the government for simply adding their name to the list of Anthropogenic Global Warming supporters.
Whether these people all intentionally lied or not is yet to be known for certain, but the results have changed our world in several ways, both for good and bad. They succeeded in raising awareness about how we are treating the environment with such disrespect, which is great, but the worst part about this whole hoax that has everyone upset are the tax increases and increased electric bills. These things don't sit too well with most people, as they feel that they were swindled into believing Global Warming was their fault and that they needed to make up for their wrong-doings by paying more money to the government.
Going Green and Global Warming
Now, just because Anthropogenic Global Warming is looking to be a false theory more and more, does that mean that going green is a hoax as well? Of course not. Going green has many benefits and incentives aside from stopping global warming. I think it is a shame that the concept of going green has become synonymous with stopping global warming, because now that people are starting to question the global warming theory, they are becoming spiteful that they were dooped and purposely boycotting the green way of life because they think it will do no good.
Going green is great for the environment overall, it doesn't have anything to do with stopping global warming. Going green saves you money, and it saves wasted energy. There is no reason why anyone should not go green, it's a very positive concept that I encourage everyone to embrace. I'm not saying that we should all go out and buy solar panels and hybrid cars, but there are a lot of small and easy things that each of us can implement in our lives and make our environment a lot cleaner for generations to come. As a global warming skeptic myself, I decided that I would create a top 10 list of the easiest ways to go green even when you believe global warming is a hoax. The list can be found by following this link: Think Global Warming Is A Hoax? Go Green Anyway! *Top 10 Easiest Ways*
Global Warming quite possibly will go down in history as the biggest hoax of all time. A few years from now, the Global Warming topic will be dead, and I suspect we will begin to see an emerging of new theories surrounding Global Cooling and a mini-Ice Age, backed by the majority of scientists and climatologists in the world, with solid evidence that doesn't rely on guilt trips or fear mongering. I believe that the Global Warming Hoax has resulted in more good than bad, and because of that I think people will be more forgiving about being lied to for so long. I hope that this whole hoax has at least shed some light on what we as humans are capable of doing to help our environment and make this world a cleaner and safer place to live in for our future generations to come.