THE GLOBAL WARMING FARCE
17 November 2007
Jim Heitmeyer
UPDATE AMENDMENT - CHANGED 20, November 2007
10:49 A.M.
Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation. Today, most people tend to blame Global warming “ The Greenhouse affect” on Humanity, for industry, gas emissions, and auto pollution. Increasing global temperatures will cause sea level to rise, and is expected to increase the intensity of extreme weather events and to change the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors. I'm not a scientist nor do I profess to have all the right answers. I am only expressing my opinion as others do.
Many terms are used in addition to this four billion dollar a year program like climate control and solar radiation. Numerous scientists have supported this Global Warming theory. It wasn’t until later that it was found out that these same scientists were either on a nice payroll list of supportive scientists or were friends to some of the directors or sponsors. Sound familiar? Most big business is no different when making money and keeping certain information to themselves. Some of these people pushing the Global Warming Farce threat are members who once supported the environmental program “Green Piece USA.” Some members moved over to the Global Warming War due to making better money.
It is a fact that numerous climate changes are taking place in the world today and that the oceans are rising as our glaciers shrink near the Arctic region, and that the temperature is rising. Our weather patterns are completely out of whack and that we are experiencing odd weather like never before. This information is very true, but to say these conditions never happened before is a farce. Research has proven that our world has experienced similar wild changes before and will probably continue to do so. At one time, they measured the elevation of the highest point on the high water mark to get a measurement of 1,720 ft/524 high - the biggest wave ever measured. We say that the tsunami at Lituya Bay was the biggest wave ever, but that's just the ones humans have witnessed and have been able to record. There have probably been even BIGGER waves that have happened in the past when human witnesses didn't even exist. And you never know, there may even be a bigger wave to happen yet. Will the warming trends that have been witnessed the past decade contribute to higher daily global maximum temperatures in the future? Possibly, but keep in mind that according to climate change models, the places projected to warm up the most are not the desert areas. The last decade has been witness to several of the warmest years in the past millennium. However, the record highest temperature ever measured in the U.S (134 degrees F at Death Valley, CA in July of 1913), and the hottest temperature ever recorded anywhere on the globe (136 F at Al' Aziziyah, Libya in September of 1922) occurred well before global warming was a buzzword, and despite the recent series of warm years, globally, these records have not seriously threatened.
Can the temperature ever exceed 136 F? In all likelihood it already has, somewhere. It would be truly amazing if the thermometer in Al' Aziziyah was placed at the exact spot on the Earth's surface that happened to have the hottest temperature ever. On that sizzling September day in 1922, the vicinity near Al Aziziyah was certainly extremely hot, but since there were few meteorological stations nearby, it's highly improbable that this particular point was indeed the hottest spot.
For example, although Pakistan has been extremely hot this past week, the world's hottest temperatures have shifted between several different locations during this period. On May 18 the temperature was 118 F in Sibi, and the next day it was 123 F in Pad Idan, and on the 20th it was 120 F again in Pad Idan, and on the 21st it was 118 F in Nawabshah, and yesterday it was 119 in Sibi. All of these readings were the highest daily temperatures for anywhere in the world. Nawabshah and Sibi are separated by approximately 300 miles.
You might think that Al Aziziyah, the site of the world's highest ever temperature, would be located somewhere in the middle of the Sahara Desert. Surprisingly, it's just a few miles south of the Mediterranean Sea, near the Libya's capitol city of Tripoli. Rarely, if ever, during the past several years has this town recorded the world's highest daily temperature. In September 1922, it would not have been out of the question that somewhere in northwestern Libya, other than Al Aziziyah, the temperature exceeded 136 degrees.
One other thing to add here is the fact that we are overdue for another Ice Age. So, when this occurs, we can blame that on Global Warming too. Fact is folks, we are being conned by people who are making a load of money from this fear tactic, getting the world all shook up and so on. It has been said that the Global Warming program has progressed so much now that it has been accepted by most people as being the truth. There are so many people employed by programs supporting Global Warming now that they are not going to stop or discontinue their efforts in adding more agencies to this huge business. I like many other Americans was concerned about Global warming before I decided to find out for myself what was true and what was not about this money-making industry. Most Americans are so gullible and will just about believe anything that passes their way. So, before taking my word about what I have just written, check the truth out for yourself. Remember, there are thousands of people that will tell you this program is real and will even go to extremes trying to convince other people in believing it. So, consider the source before believing anything I say or what others tell you. Find out for yourself.
Farce???
Exactly what farce do you think is going on? Is it a farce that over the past quarter century & rapidly escalating over the past decade, that so much of the polar ice has disappeared? Ice caps, shelves, pack, glaciers which have existed for tens of thousands of years, perhaps longer, have totally melted in a span of 25 years> that's real, it's certifiable & it's a FARCE??? PLEASE --
Only one side of the issue has an economic interest?? Do you wish to represent that there are not equal, nay, greater forces on the other side of this debate which use their immense wealth to belittle, to dismiss not only the causes but wish to represent the changes as normal for their own selfish reasons, to further increase their obscene wealth at the expense of the global ecosystem??? Yeah, don't worry, be happy as we lead you down a rabbit's hole to destruction. And it's just a coincidence that these changes occur as industry, emissions & global population are greater than ever??
Your attempt to tie in the natural, periodic climatic fluxuations as the cause is the typical conservative, neo-con sleight of hand to attempt to tie together two ABSOLUTELY unrelated phenomena, in this case > certifiable HARD data that global warming is occuring as some how tied-in with historic Ice Age patterns. The Ice Age progressions & regressions occurred over LONG periods of time & NO data, not the LEAST shred exists which would explain the EXTREMELY RAPID changes we are experiencing being in ANY way as connected with previous Ice Age patterns.
Go ahead - stick your head in the sand - the ice caps aren't disappearing, weather patterns ain't changing, it's not AT ALL connected with population or emissions - it's ALL a part of natural fluctuation, it's a liberal lie, don't worry, be happy - yada yada yada. Only pardon me if I choose to use my brain for something other than a vehicle to dream up propaganda to support a political agenda while denying reality.
Lies, hype, recriminations & counter-recriminations on either side provide enough heated atmosphere to inflate ALL the hot-air balloons of the world several times over - and as the arguments rages, time goes on & the planet melts...
AND -
You dare call it a farce.
Farce?
Yes, a farce that is making people a ton of money, from the very things that mother Earth has been doing for years. Conservative view? Isn't that like being political? Before you panic over the melting of the ice caps and climate changes ... read up on some history.
Foe to crime and friend to justice
Quit Engaging in Misinformation
I'm not getting into a "he said, she said" debate as to who's read more on this matter. I will say the views I take on ANYTHING are not just off-the-wall, grabbed from thin air tomfoolery. Here are some rock solid questions which you can either offer an answer to or not but your silence will speak volumes: If, as you postulate, the current melt-off of the polar ice (caps, sheets, shelves, glaciers, etc.) is a natural phenomena, one upon which man's activities have had ZERO effect (that is what you're claiming, right?) how explain the unprecedented, incredibly, astoundingly rapid speed of the melt-off of ice formations which have stood for tens of thousands of years & longer in some places - do you, in fact hypothesize that this SOLIDLY DOCUMENTED anomaly is of a natural causation somehow related to the periodic phenomena of glaciation & interglacials? Whatever the causes you may believe is or is not causing it, do you in fact accept or deny a rise in the global ambient temperature?? Do you further aver that man's activities have ABSOLUTELY no effect on this temperature rise? If so, where is your data to incontrovertibly prove your theorem? If you cannot present such data, then logically man's activities may be playing a role since you can't disprove it.
Farce making people a lot of money?? Don't like Al Gore much do you - but that's tangential. As if the status quo isn't making other people a lot of money; and they have all the reasons in the world to maintain the current practices so as not to be required to take steps to ameliorate those conditions which may be causing the temp rise because to do so would cost them money - so basically, such individuals/groups/businesses/corporations/governments are in effect, playing Russian roulette with the lives of the populace of the planet.
YEAH -
It's a political, neo-con view to poo-poo global warming - best quit listening to Rush, Bill, Sean et al - they're polluting your mind. I don't come at this from either viewpoint - I prefer to take a non-partisan view that OBVIOUSLY something UNPRECEDENTED is happening - common sense SHOULD tell you that; and while I'm not for draconian restrictions that the chicken little crowd would have instituted on us all, I find it asininely idiotic to adopt the "don't worry, be happy", it's all a natural process stance. That path can only lead to inactivity where solid planning is required.
My reply
I will not delete my whole article here, it may not be to the best interest of everybody here nor to say everything I wrote was an absolute. I will admit adding certain names to the program wasn't fair and that I will soon delete that part. My statement as to not to worry was an oversight of mine also. I'm sure their is a lot of man-made pollution caused by industries and nuclear waste that may contribute some to our health problems, but still believe it doesn't contribute enough to cause climatic changes or Global Warming affects. I will stand by that opinion as I am sure others will stick to their own ideas. I do appreciate your comments even though I may not agree with some of them and vice-versa by others here.
Foe to crime and friend to justice
If you don't laugh, you cry.
I read Jim's post as saying that global warming is happening but it may be part of a natural trend, and that the extremes of temperature have not been exceeded, citing temps recorded within the last hundred years, and that, while man's industry and agricultural activities may have contributed to the effect, it is either not measurable with the kind of accuracy that skeptics might require before acting on it, or that it is being deliberately exaggerated by those who seek to profit from the panic.
All of the above seems perfectly reasonable to me. That there is climate change is hard to deny. That humankind's activities have contributed to it is hard to deny.
It should be noted though, the average temperature could increase without the extremes being exceeded. The highest, or lowest temps don't necessarily tell us anything about climate change.
There will always be those who try to profit from disaster. That shouldn't make us disregard everything that is said one way or another on the subject. And it certainly shouldn't make us shout about it, when what is wanted is reasoned, open-minded discussion on the subject.
Even if the waste heat from the daily activities of a population of 6 plus billion people doesn't seem like enough to alter the climate patterns, there must be some number of people that cannot be denied as having significant effects on the climate. UN population predictions show 9.2 Billion people living in 2050 - a 50% growth from 2006. Scary, ain't it?
So whatever you personally think the threshold is, if nothing is done to stop it, disaster is inevitable. It may be from starvation due to drought. It may be from increasing, unceasing, violent weather. Some areas, like the Caribbean could become barely habitable in any permanent way from sea level rise and storm damage and destruction of fresh water and infrastructure.
Speculation is fun and maybe useful in planning where you want to be or not to be. Personally, I don't think anything significant can be done to reverse the climate changes in our lifetimes.
Why? Because the populations of newly invigorated societies like China and India and parts of Africa, which together account for 3.4 billion people, are becoming industrialized as European societies did 150 years ago - on the energy of coal - and I think they will run their course no matter what the developed West does. You can't make people put out their coal-fired furnace and go back to the oxcart by threatening them with the denial of computer software or even by pointing a nuke at them, they will just ignore you. And I don't think there's anything else we (in the West) could do to influence them. They want their day in the sun.
Bander
Global Warming reply
Bander,
Your reply here is right on the button. One thing I left out was the fact that China has been pelleting the atmosphere with a chemical for some years now that causes the weather to trigger rain, one reason why we haven't been getting our normal dose of moisture. China is in the same geological location of our jet stream ... when they bombard their atmosphere, they rob us from what moisture we would have received if they had left the jet stream alone. I would think that this would have to play some part in screwing some patterns up. What do you think?
Foe to crime and friend to honesty
Ya Know - I Was Gonna Leave It Alone
I'd said what I had to say & any further comment was just flayin' the cordovan off the deceased equine, which is, of course, the epitome of excessiveness. Unless, however, any of the specific questions I asked were answered directly, with or without corroborating data, in which case further comment or impeachment MAY have become necessary. BUT - that didn't happen
NOPE -
What happened was more egregious than just making the original neo-con statement (& I gleefully lay claim to all riffs on the word "con" - as in con job, the association of the OP with cons in his job & all the tongue-in-cheekism which that can conjure, etc.) as if it (Global Climate Change) was all a lie fabricated to enrichen a cabal of climatic fearmongers. What happened was, dare I say, cynically disingenuous & intellectually, if not exactly cowardly, then at least, shifty & dishonest. If you want to take & argue a point, then do so & stick with it but DO NOT when the debate grows contentious, go back & change your position, particularly when the weak points of your argument have been exposed.
AH - you're askin' > what the hell's he on about??
Here's the deal - I MIGHT go back & edit for spelling, verb tense/number agreement, maybe add a cite, yet, I would NEVER totally change the timbre of a piece, in effect backing off my original position because I got shown up. NOW - if for some reason, I did feel a rewrite was necessary for WHATEVER reason, I would leave the original piece so that any future readers could read the whole thread as to how it developed - to do otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Case in point - the OP of this thread, did EXACTLY that - he changed the orig post so that the current version bears scant resemblence to his original position. WHY - one should ask??
NOW -
Another responder reads the edited orig post & hasn't a clue as to the reasons behind any response to the orig post b/c it no longer exists. So the newcomer wishes to join in the debate but he hasn't all the pertinent precedents, so how can he be expected to offer succinct commentary?? He CAN'T.
So back to the debate -
As I read or hear or see anything (& the more controversial or contentious or counter to my understanding &/or experience, the more this happens) my brain is flooded w/a multiplicity of images involving the various senses, such that as I'm reading, hearing, seeing the piece, processing & critiquing the info, at the same time the various images are welling up in my consciousness (& probably subconsciousness) providing a context of agreement or opposition as the case may be. In this situation, the following bubbled up:
1) The dogged insistence by the tobacco industry that smoking wasn't harmful to the health, combined w/supposed scientific studies to augment their argument while ignoring mounting evidence to the contrary. The economic incentives to maintain the status quo were enormous.
2) Paul Ehrlich's book "The Population Bomb" - while his mathematical assumptions were flawed & advancements in ag. science made his more dire predictions as to food production untenable, the basic premise is sound, even if his timetable wasn't. The core problem is OVERPOPULATION - all the other phenomena are but manifestations thereof. AND - since people ain't gonna quit screwing nor engage in contraception, even in light of the knowledge of what their behavior will bring about, the end result is fairly certain.
3) At the end of James Clavell's book "King Rat", the rat enclosure in the prison camp is abandoned when the camp is liberated but the rats remain, minus the keepers. What develops is a stinking, shit-laden sewer of foulness - a comment on overpopulation???
4) In the movie "The Hospital" starring Geo. C. Scott, there is a drunken scene where Scott, in his role as doctor & chief of staff decries that for all that man thinks he's brought about, he has ultimately changed little. All is folly, life is futility. While I don't totally agree w/that philosophy, from a certain viewpoint, it's tough to argue against that sentiment.
5) A political statement from the early '70s > Don't change Dicks in the middle of a screw - vote for Nixon in '72.
The OP suggests in his extensively edited rewrite that we are due for another Ice Age (or more precisely - a glaciation) yet fails to rectify that view with the fact, that strictly & scientifically speaking, we are still in a period of glaciation because there are still polar ice caps/sheets/shelves - a paradoxical statement. The OP also avers that the climatic changes we are currently experiencing are of a natural cause and have nothing to do with human activity, yet fails to offer ANY explanation, flimsy or otherwise, as to the EXCEEDINGLY RAPID & UNPRECEDENTED melt-off of ice caps/sheets/shelves/glaciers/etc which have existed for tens of thousands of years or longer, yet, YET have melted off in just over a decade, a period of geological time which is not a blip nor a micro-blip nor even a nano-blip but far shorter than a micro-nano-blip. AND, that this circumstance happened at the exact same time that the human population has expanded extremely rapidly and that the resulting human activity has spewed into the atmosphere massive quantities of pollutants, both environmental & climatic, and FURTHER, that there is NO correlation - PLEASE. Then there are the individual, occasional anecdotal occurances which these preachers of no human effect like to point as proof of their viewpoint - hey, occasional, random shit happens - so what??? Look at the overall picture.
BUT - what can effectively be done?? Unfortunately I agree, not one hell of a lot. I'm NOT for abdicating national sovereignty for international controls or standards that most countries will just ignore. However, denying the changes which are occurring is equally unwise. And, if you are of the school of thought which holds that man's activities are incapable of having a global effect - 2 things > is "nuclear winter" also a farce AND refer to the "King Rat" example above.
LASTLY -
Political correctness & this currently in vogue dangerous manner of thought which holds that one should engage in debate (reasoned debate, it's often referred to as a means to disparage & belittle those who do not agree with this modus operandi) but be careful not to offend the other party. Where'd that come from? Who got appointed God to make that decision?? Who the heck thought that shit up?? I'm gonna call it like I see it & if that offends you - hey, get offended. Maybe that'll shake you outta your smug, I'm-so-reasonable-&-you're-not intellectual elitism, piercing the ennui with some genuine emotion, leading to some messy, impassioned, democratic debate - just as The Founders envisioned...
Reply
Your additional post to my amended article is awesome. There is no way I can even come close in any debate with you or even try, I can plainly see that whatever I said here wouldn't matter. I accept your information and appreciate your time and comment. As for my article here, it remains as amended. Your point here is well taken. Enough said.
Foe to crime and friend to honesty
Pandora's Box
If one removes the lid, then best be prepared for whatever issues forth.
DO NOT attempt to placate nor patronize me. Your orig position was that the phenomenon of Global Warming as a human caused scenario AND those who, as you put it > are getting rich from fearmongering about it - are a farce. Your position unfortunately fails to mention that so too the dogged clingers to status quo are a farce.
Many Americans are sick unto apoplexy at the ideologic posturin' which have passed for political debate for far too long. This (Global Warming) is one subject about which the neo-con position (which is EXACTLY what you originally postulated) is & has been especially pretensiously phony. At first, when this subject began to scratch the public consciousness, say perhaps 15 yrs ago, the neo-con lying heads put forth the position that global warming was not only not man-made, it was, in fact, a TOTAL fabrication, slanderous prevarication dreamed up by the libs so as to sign away our sovereignty in the pursuit of some environmental One Worldism vision. There were mocking references to any isolated incidence of unusually cold weather as proof of the neo-cons position.
But time passed, the empirical evidence mounted that something was UNDENIABLY afoot, so the position changed to, well, yeah, maybe SOMETHING was happening BUT it was all based in natural forces & man had absolutely NOTHING to do with it; and in attempts to poo-poo the warming theme, it became vogue to mention that the planet was due for another period of glaciation & that the warming was just a precursor to that. Then more time passed, the conditions & results accelerated, so the position is now shifting to, well, it's mostly natural forces but MAYBE human activity MIGHT be playing a role SOMEHOW.
And against that backdrop, you make your orig post. It's not that, as you put it > "There is no way I can even come close in any debate with you or even try, I can plainly see that whatever I said here wouldn't matter." - NOPE - it's that in this particular debate you took an untenable position & I'm not of the thinking that I should be a nice guy - I know I don't play well w/others & I don't care, truth & accuracy being of primary consideration & the rest can shake out as it does. Next time, choose a subject which you can defend with some measure of authority because you lost this one with the opening title.
Global Warming Farce
Truthfully, for starters, I wasn't out to win anything. Secondly, I'm aware of the fact that there will be some people who differ in one opinion or another to my article here.
Thirdly, don't take my kindness as a weakness. I say and do things that don't please everybody including you. Please, if you are after a verbal volleyball exchange here in wit or how smart you are, or in me being wrong about something, play it elsewhere. Thank you, happens.
Foe to crime and friend to honesty
Neo-Con Chameleon??
And foe to free-speech so it would appear. Is it that cop thing which makes you have to have the last, dismissive word? Well - I'm NOT one of your charges.
Not trying to win anything? Of course you weren't - but maybe disparage those with whom you don't agree?? Hmmm??
Whatever -
My work here is done...
PS:
I never claimed this: "
Ditto
I thank you sir. Jim
Foe to crime and friend to honesty