09 January 2009

Global Warming Hoax & the Myth of Scientific Concensus

Recent evidence from the North Pole and your own backyard has shaken the ideological delusions of Climate Alarmists in the Church of Global Warming. Turns out, "global warming" is just another trendy leftist Cause, a man-made religion to collect alms (i.e. tax dollars) to fund the progress of the Nanny State.

The serious scientific world is rattling Archdruid Gore's cage with the Oregon Petition. This project has set itself the task of reviewing the research work of climate change advocates, and has consistently found their "evidence" to be deeply flawed. As a result of both past and on-going review, the scientists of the Oregon Petition Project have asked scientists world-view to sign the following petition addressed to the U.S. government:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

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."

At last count this petition has received over 31,000 signatures from scientists world, including over 9,000 Ph.D.'s. By the way, the petition has strict guidelines for who can and cannot sign.

In a paper summarizing the available peer-reviewed research on global warming titled, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," scientists, Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, conclude:

"A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed [. . .]

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed.

We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions [. . .]

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased [. . .]

Dr. Noah Robinson has produced a video titled, "The Global Warming Myth," which neatly presents the above quoted research. Skip to 2:25 for the beginning the actual presentation.

The north pole is not melting.
It is has become a pseudo-religion practiced by eco-fundamentalists in the media, has-been celebrities, Marxist radicals, and quack scientists.

The Church of Global Warming claims that there is a "scientific concensus" on the reality of global warming. They are wrong.

Even the moonbats at the Huffington Report are starting to figure it all out.

So, when you hear Archdruid Al Gore pontificating on global warming while reaching for your wallet, go out in the snow and have some fun.

17 comments:

  1. chrisacs12:47 AM

    Father

    1. What is a "moonbat?"
    2. Reference your answer to a previous question - If I buy you a book ($50 dollar value fo course) at Amazon will you stick to theology on your site?

    Respectfully

    chris

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chris,

    "Moonbat" is a term I use to describe those who flit around biting at any and every trendy idea that floats by...imagine a blind bat chasing a bug.

    You can buy the book...but you will have to tell me why theology has nothing to do with politics. Or, if they do intersect, why I shouldn't write about the intersection. Keep in mind, visiting and reading my blog is purely voluntary...for now, that is! I intend to petition the Obama for a bailout and the passage of a bill that requires all Americans to read my blog everyday. It's for their own good.

    ReplyDelete
  3. chrisacs2:15 AM

    Father
    I concede that this is your blog and my attnedance is voluntary, albeit for my own good (perhaps I should demur at this point). Additionally, I do not and did not claim politics and religion do not intersect but where is the intersection here? Why has global warming become a quasi religion? Is there something deeper to this and what or better yet how does Catholic theology answer this? I’ve seen the hypothesis that global warming is a new paganism but don’t think that’s the case. There are too many smart people, Al Gore NOT included, who present global warming very lucidly. I guess I am more interested in these views than I am in your climatology expertise. Then again it is your blog!!!!!!

    When I was in the Army, we had a saying if something didn’t look right – “messed up as a football bat.” Hence my moonbat question!

    God Bless and very respectfully

    chris

    ReplyDelete
  4. aaaahhh, but as a Dominican you'll have to share that bailout with the less fortunate..right? (hint: the less fortunate would be ME)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chris,

    Great questions...

    Recently, the Church of England divested itself of holdings in companies that do share its new found faith in GW. They reinvested the money in "green funds," projects set up on the very dubious grounds of GW hysteria.

    Many on the very edge of the GW ideology point to Christian understandings of the ecology as the devil in the woods...meaning, they blame the Church for the alleged destruction of the earth. Their accusations are not entirely untrue, but their proposed solutions would infringe on the Church's right to govern itself.

    Since left-liberals have succeed in removing the nations Christian heritage from the classroom, they have replaced it with the religion of GW. GW provides them with the perfect framework to push "population control" (birth control, same-sex marriage, and abortion), social responsibility to the poor (gov't wealth redistribution projects), and other pseudo-religious antics.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Chesterton said: Politicians use statistics like a drunkard uses a light post, more for support than illumination. I would add scientists looking for grant money and/or NYT best-seller list.

    ReplyDelete
  7. hmm..collecting alms (taxpayer dollars), hadn't thought of it that way. I have however compared selling carbon offsets to the selling of indulgences. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've recently read of a move to tax farmers for the amount & type of livestock they have, the idea being that Bossie chewing her cud & farting will produce methane gas that'll harm the enviornment.

    Guess we can all breathe easier now (as long as we're upwind of Bossie).

    ReplyDelete
  9. @chrisacs:

    I'd point out, in addition to what Father stated, GW has for many of its adherents provided a convenient movement with which to challenge the Catholic Church's teaching on the dignity and primacy of the human person, going so far as to claim that having children is harmful to the environment and that the ultimate way to "go green" would be to effect the extinction of the Human race.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Matt is exactly right. The GW hysteria is a Frankenstein's monster that relies on body parts from a number of dead ideologies...recycled from gnostic philosophy, crap science, neo-Marxism, feminist theologies, and other less dubious but no less harmful social control movements, including Zero Population Growth and the deification of teachnology.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So lets change the debate to air quality. It is infinitely easier to quantify and something we can all support (who wants to breathe dirty air?). Glaciers are melting, but who knows why. Crap in the air is a much more straightforward issue.

    ReplyDelete
  12. OBpoet,

    In all the ways that really matter, I'm as green as you can get. As Christians, we have a tremendous responsibility in using and caring for our environment. What I have no patience for is the lefty hysteria around GW that has slowly taken on the rhetorical flavor of fundamentalist religion. Reputable scientists who question the Data are called "deniers" and even equated with holocaust deniers. The whole preaching green in the public schools has become a kind of creepy spirituality.

    Good article on the myth of glacial melting:

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

    Remember the predictions of the Coming Ice Age in the 80's? What are seeing now is the natural cyclical melting of ice that accumulated during that time. In other words, current melting is a natural corrective response to too much ice and snow back then.

    http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous2:33 PM

    Do you think the person who said this is a member of the Church of Global Warming?

    "Indeed, questions of security, development goals, reduction of local and global inequalities, protection of the environment, of resources and of the CLIMATE, require all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet. I am thinking especially of those countries in Africa and other parts of the world which remain on the margins of authentic integral development, and are therefore at risk of experiencing only the negative effects of globalization."

    Pope Benedict's address to the UN General Assembly 18 April 2008
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080418_un-visit_en.html


    "Preservation of the environment, promotion of sustainable development and particular attention to climate change are matters of grave concern for the entire human family. No nation or business sector can ignore the ethical implications present in all economic and social development. With increasing clarity scientific research demonstrates that the impact of human actions in any one place or region can have worldwide effects."

    B16, 1 September 2007
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070901_symposium-environment_en.html

    Presumably he also authorized the Vatican City aiming to become the the first 'carbon neutral' state in the world.
    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9868

    Unless the Pope is part of the international scientific and political conspiracy you mention...

    Leo

    BTW, Fr Philip I have edified and stimulated by most of your posts I have so far read.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Leo,

    Thanks for reading and commenting! You've done some of the work I was planning to do for a post on our Green Pope.

    The Holy Father is calling Catholics to a legitimate stewardship of creation that falls to us in virtue of our own creatureliness. My concern in this post should not be read as a denial of that stewardship.

    My concern is the quasi-religious tone of the GW hysterics and their media mouthpieces. When I say that "GW is a hoax" I do not mean that the global is not warming. I mean simply that the whole complex of GW ideology is a hoax; that is, that increased carbon levels in the atmosphere are causing the globe to warm; this warming is changing the climate; the changing climate is adversely affecting the weather; therefore, we need expansive, international intervention to force people to become GW hysterics.

    The hoax rests in the causal links btw and among these premises.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous2:50 AM

    If co2 increases temperature and increased temperature increases co2 ,then, would the temperature have spiralled off the scale a long long time ago ?

    Yup , it would have , that is if global warming were not a hoax foisted upon the vulnerable and the opportunists whose left wing lives are so freakin' devoid of purpose (religion ).

    BTW "freakin" is religious term.

    Maggr

    ReplyDelete
  16. Maggr,

    Thanks for this comment...however, I will not publish your other comment.

    You can call me whatever you like, but the second you trash the Pope, you're outta here.

    Period.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sharon11:30 PM

    I am not an apologist for or against global warming because two different sets of scientists can view the same data and draw different conclusions which leaves me confused.

    What about this I read yesterday?
    http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50I4G520090119?sp=true

    Antartic ice shelf due to collapse due to global warming.

    ReplyDelete