The Church of Climate Change

Or "The Church of Man-Made Global Warming (Reformed)"

I was reading an article this morning and it reminded me of how much I've been wanting to put up a post that looked at the global warming hype from an critical perspective. Liberals have been falling over themselves in the last couple years to get in your face with their MMGW opinions. I refer to it as a religion for 3 reasons. Firstly, it's not unusual for a global warming believer to turn directly to vicious personal attacks on anybody who dare take a skeptical look at their conclusions. This is a well developed tactic used by fundamentalists and zealots of all stripes, with the most high profile examples being large religions. It's easier to discredit somebody who questions your assumptions than it is to debate in the arena of ideas. Secondly, MMGW zealots are basing their drastic predictions on computer models, which even at their most complicated, are many times simpler than the actual complexities that exist in Earth's atmosphere. Anybody who's had computer training in their lives probably recognizes the term Garbage in, Garbage out. This term applies here because the folks who come up with these models are assuming that they know all of the variables and complexities that would go into such a prediction. Scientists can't even predict weather more than a few hours out, what makes them think they can predict global temperatures several years from now? We're supposed to take their conclusions on faith, a very religious assertion. My last argument for equating MMGW zealots to religious fundamentalists is that they're don't betray their real objectives until they are tricked. Just as Islamic fundamentalists support the Palestinian argument that the holy land is Muslim territory because of their occupation of the land prior to 1948 their argument hides the fact that want Judaism wiped from the face of the earth. The MMGW zealots want us to accept this 'crisis' as fact and give them money and support, not mentioning that their ultimate goal is the seizing of wealth/power and the destruction of the capitalist/free market economy. They do all this under the guise of saving cute little polar bears and the like.

I implore all readers to step back and carefully look at all sides in this debate. Remember, radicals need a 'crisis', self-made or otherwise, to get their agenda passed, otherwise their agenda wouldn't be radical.

Recommended read:
Christopher Booker
Roy Spencer
Lawrence Solomon
GlobalWarmingHype.com

Below is a comment on a thread that appears under the first article cited above. I thought it was appropriate.

The Sun is a 386 billion MegaWatt nuclear fusion reactor making life possible on Earth 93 million miles away. Changes in the Sun's radiation dwarfs any other source of warming/cooling, which includes variations in Earth's orbit and atmospheric gases. Each day, more energy reaches the Earth from the Sun than is consumed by all mankind in 27 years. A single solar flare can produce energy equivalent to 100 million 10 Megaton nuclear fusion warheads. The estimated average solar energy received at Earth's outer atmosphere is called TSI or Total Solar Irradiance. TSI is estimated on average to be 1,368 Watts per square meter, but varies based on cyclical Sun spot activity/radiation, among other variables. Only 70% of the Sun's energy received by Earth's atmosphere (TSI) is absorbed. TSI has increased 0.1% during the mere 25 years NASA has been measuring it, which explains warming. A TSI shift of 0.2% is equivalent to all energy consumed by all humans in one year.

Solar variation explains the warming and cooling cycles long before fossil fuel consumption, i.e., the "Little Ice Age" where Earth's temperature was estimated to be down 2 degrees F. However, knowing that non-human activity can swing temperature far more, Marxists blame only the tiny annual 3% human-generated portion of atmospheric CO2 emissions for an alleged 1.33 degree F temperature rise in the past 150 years in response to an alleged 150% increase in CO2. They predict a 2 to 11.5 degree F rise in the next 100 years in response to an alleged estimated 50% to 250% increase in CO2. The amount of gas in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 51 trillion cubic meters weighing 5,000 trillion metric tons. Of this, Nitrogen and Oxygen are approximately 99%, water vapor is approximately 1%, and CO2 is a mere trace gas at 0.038% or a mere 2 trillion metric tons. Plants absorb CO2 and release oxygen in the carbon cycle. Natural processes involving oceans, soil, plants, etc. emit (and absorb) 33 times more CO2 per year than do all human emissions. Humans contribute a mere 3% (6 billion metric tons) of the 186 billion metric tons of CO2 emitted annually. The other 97% of annual CO2 is naturally occurring, mostly from the oceans that cover 71% of the planet. The amount of CO2 consumed is approximately the same as that emitted, including by humans. Even the annual variations in emission/absorption of CO2 exceeds annual emissions by humans.

Humans can't even accurately predict short or long term local weather or mood swings of a solitary person, let alone 100+ years of global temperatures of an astronomically complex system with only a handful of years of accurate empirical measurements. Global warming lunatics consist only of socialists and communists seeking greater control of people and their property. Global warming is asserted as a crisis to try to force quick, uneducated decisions, as all salesmen do to consumers. When government and privateers like Al Gore propose regulation, rest assured there is at least one self-serving scam behind it. Redistribution of American wealth to non-productive Americans and foreigners, with people like Al Gore positioned as an Enron-type "carbon credit" trade middleman skimming money for nothing useful, obviously cannot control Earth's temperatures. It is not a "solution" to "man made" "global warming," but that's not what they are after. It is truly us against them and they already declared war on us.

PS Please direct global warming to me because I'm freezing my a$$ off.

--Sean from Mount Rushmore (USA)

Here's another one I liked. This guy agrees with me and makes some valid points:

It's way to early to claim victory in the great climate battle (debate it certainly is not). If experts, commentators and politicians can deny there was a credit bubble for as long as they did, then it will be years before the climate juggernaut grinds to a halt. Watch CNN tell us how the Artic sea ice has receded as never before in thousands of years all due to human activity or The Independent predict doom upon doom month after month, and you know this ain't over 'til it's over.
As I understand it the controversy comes down to the computer models used. They were constructed to explain warming and none could do so using naturally occuring data. So scientists decided to add in human factors and hey presto the models conformed to the currently known data.
This is the crux of the problem. Did they know and understand enough about natural causes before making the leap to human factors?
I suspect not. But the human guilt bandwagon was rolling, politicians were jumping on board, funding increased, so there was no going back and saying hey, maybe we ought to do some more research into how the climate functions.
Scientists became politicised defending their 'tithes' and turning their principles into beliefs and their judgments into prophecies.
It has become a religion in the same manner all religions are born, the attempt to answer the question 'is nature enough to explain the wonders of the Earth and all the creature upon it?'
In the absence of sufficient data the answer was no. The gap was filled by God and hey presto everything was explained and fitted the known facts.

--john walter