All it takes is a little science…

I’ve asked many a global warming believer what the “temperature” of the earth would be without people and without pollution and without all of the other naughty things they believe to cause global warming. Their answer? “I dunno.”

That’s right. So if you don’t know what the temperature of the earth was supposed to be without all these evil influences, how can you honestly say that the earth is warmer than it should be???

Yesterday’s Chicago Sun Times had a great article about the fake science in Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth.” The article makes these great points:

  • …Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate reported, “Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.”
  • Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa’s Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, “Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests’ humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.”
  • Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
  • Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
  • Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, “Africa’s deserts are in ‘spectacular’ retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa.”
  • Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, “the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain.” In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
  • Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

So there you have it. No global warming.

2 Comments

  1. Manoj 07/07/2007 at 12:36 pm - Reply

    On World Environment Day, I wrote a poem on the global warming hoax. I invite you to read and comment: Traders of Fear.

  2. Chris Linares 07/08/2007 at 12:39 am - Reply

    Despite the minimal and questionable data you site here, is it not a prudent action for the human race to address the idea of conservation? Even if the degree of impact was small and timeframe for effects distant, would it not be worth while to use less energy, develop more efficient methods of transport, and ensure this does not become a “Planetary Emergency” if it is not one already? Do I hear your side of the debate saying keep throwing recycleables in the landfills, use as much of the non-renewable resourses as you want, and disregard the possibility of our childrens children suffering due to the lack of responsibility we are demonstrating today?
    I feel like just because one side has a stance, some group has to oppose it just as an intrinsic response. What skin is it off yours or Limbaugh’s
    nose if people want to develop geen methods of living? Why oppose somthing that is not harmful to humanity, oh, I guess like a lot of things it’s about money…

    Chris Linares
    Mt Vernon Wa.

Leave a Reply