Thu. Apr 18th, 2024

Opinion Piece By Samuel Strait – October 27, 2017
I have always been a consistent skeptic when I hear members of the media and government begin to talk about science in terms of absolutes, accepted science, and overwhelming consensus, because science very rarely can  be described in such a fashion even in today’s world of technological advances.  Sciences have great difficulty discovering all the variable truths in a singular question let alone finding them all after centuries of concentrated study.  This alone should make it difficult for any rational human being who understands this scientific process that relatively “new” sciences should be much more circumspect when they announce to the world that it is a consensus that human beings are the predominant cause of both global warming and climate change.  History and and other scientific disciplines will inevitably come along and burst your bubble.

As such, my skepticism about human caused global warming and the corresponding fear mongering over climate change has now been joined by over 900 scientific studies authored and peer reviewed by legitimate scientists in just the last two years.  Prior to this revelation, “Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers In 2017 Say “Global Warming” Is A Myth”, there have been numerous efforts by other voices in the scientific community, quite often disparaged and silenced by the popular press, that have made the same claims based on their research.

Within the science of climatology, a relatively new born science of less than fifty years, money has become the driving force behind many of the irresponsible claims of settled science.  This, coupled with largely unsupported claims in the mainstream media of certainty, has allowed a very suspect science to exist long after collected data  as well as historic data have show the conclusions drawn to be false.  In the interim, our own government has become a major player behind this science in its infancy which enabled them to control a vast portions of our countries’ economy all in the name of solving a human caused problem of epic proportions that does not exist.  Not so fast….

In all the collective angst gushed out by the disciples of “global warming and climate change” when any hint of alternative explanations emerge, some very important facets of legitimate science has been over looked, that of a faithful consistency when examining the data, not only that of which climatology has accumulated, but that of other scientific disciplines.  Many of the supposed “truths of of global warming and climate change”, that of human activity over the last 125 years being the major culprit, can quite easily be shown to be false when the time line is extended to 500 years.  Recent climate variation in that time frame look remarkably normal.  When the time line is extended even further than 500 years, our current climate variation becomes positively pedestrian.

Despite the insistence that the 0.8 Centigrade temperature rise world wide in the last 125 years is apocalyptic, this view appears idiotic in light of the revelations found in just a few of the studies to be found in Delingpole’s collection.  Any number of studies which have largely been ignored in the past coupled with those of recent vintage clearly reveal temperature increases and decreases of much greater proportions are common place in the history of our planet.   Any ideas of the catastrophic effect on the planet and human lives is a hand greatly overplayed by the Global Warming community.  The effect of the rise in temperature thus far has proven to be more beneficial than harmful thus far, while the rush to “adjust human” activity to reduce green house gases and move to alternative forms of energy has revealed to be far more harmful than beneficial.

It will soon become positively hilarious to hear people described as “deniers” when they find both human caused climate change or global warming to be false, a hoax, or any other negative connotation.  One only needs to read but a few of the studies referred to by Delingpole for it to become clear that the main motivation behind the conclusion that climatologists have drummed up for public consumption, that of human causality, is but a mechanism to generate a whole new form of industry based on false science.  This is a dangerous path that new sciences have begun to tread, all in the name of millions of dollars in tax payer funded grants supplied by various Federal and State Governments.  When the idea of climate generated holocausts by human hand begins to fall under the weight of other scientific studies, I am quite sure that similar “new” sciences will quickly enter the grant filled void left when Climate Change and Global Warming disintegrates as a legitimate cause to empty the pockets of tax payers for no appreciable gain.   One can only hope that as soon as possible a healthy dose of common sense and propriety is injected into certain participants in many of the fields of modern science.  The United States and the World as well can ill afford being tied to that of junk science as we have been for years to the false gods of Global Warming and Climate Change as a result of this modern industrialized world that humans have created.  Time to put an end to the preaching of Climate Change and Global Warming and get back to the realm of real science.

7 thoughts on “Human Caused Global Warming a Myth?”
  1. CO2, carbon dioxide, is a greenhouse gas. It increases the retention of heat from the sun in our atmosphere. You can prove it to yourself with a very large balloon filled with air another with CO2 and a good thermometer.
    We, mankind, dump BILLIONS of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly mainly by burning fossil fuels. The resulting increase in CO2 in our atmosphere has been measured for years. How can mankind NOT be responsible for causing or at very least adding to global warming?

    The White House, that bastion of centrist thinking, has just released the latest, required government report which clearly indicates that global warming is man made. Ninety seven percent of climatologists worldwide agree with this devastating opinion!

    The only organized, large group of deniers WORLDWIDE is the American Republican Party.

  2. Is everyone an expert? I think the scientists are right. Read this: Massive Government Report Says Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause

    But if you’re not up for reading MASSIVE government reports, then you are right. However; you’re right only in your own mind. In reality, you’re more wrong than you ever even imagined. Someday you will be very glad you were wrong.

    1. The first problem you have is that the article referenced is from NPR, a notorious progressive source. The second problem you have is all the government agencies involved in producing the report. Every government report gets its funding from where? Third problem, and it is a major one, is every finding mentioned in the article has a much more sensible scientific study which produces results over a greater period than 200 years (about 150 years of which climate science did not exist as a science) which explain each of the supposed examples of warming, rising sea levels, forest fires, ad naseum as other than human caused. Makes much more compelling reading than the”Massive Government Report”, and they clearly include data beyond that of climate science in the age where industrialization and human causality could not explain very similar warming and climate variation often to a much greater degree. As I pointed out in the piece, the warming and climate studies which “claim” human causality are invariably funded on a massive scale by various levels of government. It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what both the government and the climate change industry have at stake. Beside, even the NPR article which I can only assume takes its information from “the Massive Government Report” have inflated the data on a pretty hefty scale. Over the next couple of days I will wade through the Massive Government nonsense and compare it to the already known fallacies contained in the NPR article and get back to you. I wouldn’t hold out too much hope for that Government Report, in just a couple of studies that I read, warming caused by humans is pretty much toast as a credible explanation, increased rainfall the same, and no credible evidence of catastrophic sea level increase just to get the ball rolling.

      1. Samuel, I applaud you for making this bold move. I have been wishy-washy about whether I believe it’s got any less to do with anything except God’s will for you and I, but I put spirituality above the realm of science, yet don’t try to deny either.

        I believe when something is written, it can either be taken with a grain of salt or seriously, when the author has a goal, such as the concerned scientists.

        I’ve always loved science, but more along the lines of psychology, yet I also studied materials science, and here we have environmental, which is not my forte. Still, it’s a foregone conclusion that the “engine” of the industrial revolution is like a fire, burning what it can dig up from the ground, as everything does come from the earth, and will inevitably return to it if it cannot escape our now fragile and complaining atmosphere.

        Perhaps also, when one considers what is the environment, it could be thought of as a place that supports your quality of life, also not dirty. Fossil fuels are dirty and have a very detrimental effect on life. I propose clean energy, along with other lovers of our “comfortable and clean, life-supporting” environment. I am grateful for it, and I’ve enjoyed this world for my long life, however; if I had taken on the task of leaving it cleaner than I found it, I dare say I have not succeeded … yet.

        Thank you for lively banter, good sir.

        1. Anthony, As promised I have spent the time in the last several days wading through the “Massive Government Report…..” better known as NCA4 and found it not so much as “new” science, but an effort to plug the many holes in current warming and climate change theory. As such, I intend to make my comments in the form of another article in the CCTimes to be concluded shortly. In addition, I spent some of the time reading a random selection from the 1500 “new” scientific studies, about 90 in all, which is where the actual science is to be found, not in the “Massive Government Report….”. So…. stay tuned and have a look at my next “bold move”. Actually, I can’t claim credit for what has been an on going and increasingly vocal process to rein in the excesses of the warming and climate change industry for even the “Massive Government Report….” acknowledges there has been more and more scientific defection from the acclaimed 97% consensus in their “Executive Summary” before going on to claim certainty about human causality.

  3. You know, for a while eggs were supposedly bad for you. Then they were good for you again. Then it was the yolks that were bad for you, and you could only eat the whites. Now the yolks are said to be high in Omega-3’s and other nutrients, and actually have no effect on your cholesterol level. The point is, the science is always developing.

    The conceit of modern science is that scientists know everything. We don’t even know how our own brains work right now. Climate “science” has gone the way of egg science. First it was the “greenhouse effect”, then it was a hole in the ozone layer, then it was “global warming”, then suddenly it wasn’t just warming it was “climate change”. Well, sure the climate changes. It’s called weather. Climate “science” has only been around for a couple hundred years, and you’re telling me that that bit of measurement is definitive when this planet has been around BILLIONS of years? I don’t buy it.

    There was an economist named Thomas Malthus who theorized that global population would grow exponentially while food production would only grow arithmetically. His theory was that eventually we would experience a global catastrophe as population growth outstripped the means with which to feed it. He had some odd theories about how to slow population growth, like marrying later in life so one’s family would end up being smaller. What he didn’t account for was the development of new technologies in the future that would increase the means of production to account for the increase in population.

    So, that’s how I see climate “science”. I don’t believe it accounts for things becoming more efficient. We see gas engines that are going farther and farther, mileage-wise, on one tank. Who knows what other things real science might come up with? The sky isn’t falling. We’re going to be fine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *