One of the greatest lies?
The Video
---------------------------------------------------------
The Great Global Warming Swindle
I've hosted this video here for you; a benefit of just some of the work I've been doing in the background for a while. The video player is flash format, and I've presented the videos in their native resolution and framerate. Enjoy. Note: The video is CPU intensive (not for old computers!). If you have an older computer, I'd suggest YouTube (a.k.a. google) to view this video.
It's a BBC documentary once aired on "Channel 4." Directed by Martin Durkin, aired on March 8, 2007. This controversial video goes against the alarmist warnings of the current political Global Warming agenda.
The Science
---------------------------------------------------------
Well I was once like most people; unaware of the realities of Global Warming. I saw Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth and thought it provided a powerful argument. Its science seemed plausible. After all, the most touted claim by Global Warming activists is, "Most scientist agree on the Global Warming issue." Or so I thought.
But then I heard about this:
Livescience.com
Basically, the Earth, Mars, and Pluto are heating up too! Haven't you heard of Mars polar ice caps? Did you know they are also melting? That's right. CO2 emissions are not the largest contributing factor to global warming like some people would like you to believe. The original data for warming due to the sun came from NASA! You have to understand that Solar radation is the largest single contributing factor to global warming. After all, the Sun comprises 99.86% of the Solar System's mass. As the number of sunpots increase, our planet warms (possibly due to the increasing coronal discharge from the sunspots). During the last mini ice age, we had a record low of recorded sunspots. The correlation between sunspots and temperature (or more generally the correleation between the sun and temperature) is undeniable.
But the Livescience article claims that Mars' icecaps are melting due to something called Milankovitch Cycles. Of course the article also mentions that Earth goes throught the very same cycles. Milankovitch cycles on Earth cause both "Warm Periods" and "Ice Ages" as admitted by even the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). We are in fact coming out of the last ice age, and in the global timeline of events, our planet is returning to normal conditions (which are slightly warmer than we currently are). The IPCC is supposed to be the neutral authority on Global Warming.
Unforntunately the IPCC is two faced. Within their own organization there are two opinions:
1. Global Warming is a serious problem, and global catastrophe is impending. We need a Carbon Tax to mitigate the problem, and spend billions trillions of dollars in doing so. The human production of CO2 is one of the main causes of rising temperatures.
2. Global Warming is real. The temperature on the surface, especially within urban areas, is increasing. But, humans cannot be blamed for the majority of warming. The evidence doesn't support this theory. We should try to lower our output of CO2, but we shouldn't take drastic measures and implement ill conceived ideas like the Carbon Tax. Spreading FUD is definitely the wrong way to go about it.
The Politics
---------------------------------------------------------
As I said before, the IPCC is two faced. Let me explain. Most of what we hear and see from the mass media, including Al Gore's movie, is based on opinion #1. As we all know, FUD sells a lot better than opinion #2 which doesn't have such a dire message.
An important fact: The rise in CO2 follows the rise in temperature of the planet, by about 800 years! Which means our sun heats us up first, and then more CO2 is produced as an effect. This cause and effect relationship is clearly supported by the data, but people like Al Gore conveniently forget to tell you that fact. Sure, they try to push aside this fact by saying "Some unknown process" causes this relationship to happen, but it's just another way to say "We'll make up explanations to fit our theory." Instead of just conceding that the data doesn't show a strong correlation to support their theories.
The Carbon Tax
----------------------------------------------------------
Sure, I understand that we need to clean up our ways, and take steps to reduce carbon emissions. But its not the end of the world! And realistically the human race's contribution to CO2 emissions is only a fraction of the total (in fact, a fraction of a fraction). CO2 is a fraction of the greenhouse gases, with water vapor being 90 something % of the gasses.
We surely don't need a "Carbon Tax."
To me, global warming is just a buzzword to generate fear in the population so that we will one day be willing to pay a Carbon Tax. To become "Carbon Neutral" is the latest trend. What does that usually mean? It means you pay somebody, like These Guys, to supposedly take initiative on your behalf to reduce carbon emissions. But studies have already shown they don't actually do anything useful with your money! It's all bureaucracy created to take your money. Global Warming is potentially a mutli-trillion dollar a year business. And unfortunate suckers are falling for it!
Guess what, my own hosting company, Dreamhost, is "Carbon Neutral." Suckers? Well, at least that's one less thing people can complain about. Al Gore too has jumped on this latest trend, buying "carbon credits" to offset his CO2 emission. Ditto for the Governator Arnold. Ditto for countless other celebrities who are getting on this bandwagon.
My Opinion
----------------------------------------------------------
So I just wanted to throw my ideas out at you. I hope you do your own research, and argue with me if you feel like it. Why do you think I put all those links up? They don't all support my opinion either. I'm trying my best not to be biased. Resorting to mudslinging and name-calling has never solved any problems, and it would seem that the mass-consciousness of the world is now set on becoming "green" without any regard to the wasteful spending and other consequences our decisions have on the rest of the world. The Green movement has become a political movement, the IPCC has become a politicking body like every other bureaucracy. What do bureaucracies do best? They find ways to keep themselves in power; to make money
You have to realize that a whole industry has sprung up to "combat" the global warming issue. Many people's jobs and careers are based on the FUD of global warming, while others, like from my very own alma mater UCSD/Scripps marine biologist (also one of the lead authors of the IPCC's reports) depend on research and grant money for their livelihood. Who's going to give you research money for a non-immediate issue? Not many people. But if you add "...dire consequences" you are likely to get paid.
Some notes:
1. Humans put out more CO2 emissions than volcanos. This is against the claim made by "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It still doesn't change much however. (of course this data too depends on how catastrophic any given volcano erruption is, but for the most part we put out more emissions).
2. One of the graphs in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is incorrectly labeled for time (x-axis).
The director has since made these points clear. I still believe the movie provides a valid viewpoint.
