Note from Dan: Mark Jurkevich is taking a short vacation, so there will be no fresh posts from him today or Monday. Here’s an oldie-but goodie he wrote for this blog on March 10, 2010 under the pen name, MarkX. I’ve edited it lightly, added a comment and changed the art. Incidentally, comedian Bill Maher disagrees (NSFW).
By now it’s pretty hard for the informed and interested not to be certain that the orthodox global warmers, led by their front man, Al Gore, have grossly distorted the facts to fit their story line.
Yes, in 2010, I no longer fear being labeled a heretic and brought before an Inquisition for making such a statement! To throw Gore’s words back into his face – this fraud is now established fact and we have to move beyond that debate and now identify who is behind it and what is their motivation.
The global-warming alarm bells can be grouped as follows (the new name Climate Change just adds more fuzz):
1) Humanity is endangering Planet Earth. The global-warming high priests wrapped the issue in these claims because clearly nobody wants to be against Mother Nature. But the fact is that Mother Nature could care less about the worst-case scenarios that the high priests forecast. Earth has thrived in far warmer warming cycles during which, for instance, the polar ice caps shrunk so much that the Gulf of Mexico’s shores almost reached where Fort Worth, Texas is today.
There is an amazing state park which shows animal tracks of life which flourished along what was then the coast line. Likewise, the last ice age reached its peak only 20,000 years ago – that is like yesterday in this science. The ice sheets reached, for example, where Princeton, New Jersey is today. Nearby, you can visit impressive lines of rocks marking the southern-most line reached by the ice sheets. Maybe we should ask Al Gore and the other global-warming front men to explain how humanity is responsible for the global warming that caused the ice sheet to retreat from Princeton to Greenland in such a short time.
Inside these major cycles are mini-cycles. Near Copenhagen, the site of the recent farcical global warming summit are medieval-period churches standing in sand dunes more than 5 miles from the sea. Records show that 500 years ago they were on the shore line, which since receded. This shoreline shift was caused by the significant global warming and cooling “mini-cycles” that the East Anglia and Penn State scientists tried so hard to cover up, but which have recently been exposed in the scientific scandal currently swirling round. Indeed, planet Earth is doing just fine.
2) Global Warming Will Endanger Humanity. Obviously when the next time the United States gets flooded by the Gulf of Mexico all the way up to Fort Worth, Tex, it will reduce the natural advantages that the U.S. enjoys that are one of the keys to its super-power status. Of course, this will not happen overnight like the earthquake in Haiti, so the U.S., or whatever future social structure inhabits this land at the time, would have time to adjust. Ironically, the global-warming high priests’ main concern is that global warming will bake the planet and cause water stress (i.e. shortages).
Yet, applying common sense, shouldn’t we have more fresh water if the polar ice caps melt significantly, freeing-up locked fresh water? (Note from Dan: Not if that ice melts into the Earth’s oceans). On this matter, the global-warming high priests have shamelessly distorted scientific research.
Consider the following spicy contradictions in the global-warming high priests’ story:
a) Following the Earth’s natural cooling and warming cycles, we should expect such rises and falls in the oceans and ice sheet coverage. The global-warming high priests who profess to be protecting Earth from humanity’s interference, are therefore advocating the contrary – to interfere with Mother Nature’s cycles that have co-existed with life on Earth for hundreds of millions of years.
b) If we are in a long-term global warming cycle, regardless of humanity’s contribution vs. natural cycle, some parts of the world will become much more attractive for humanity. As quoted in the 2 Feb. 10 Wall Street Journal, the renowned climatologist Nigel Arnell’s landmark 2004 model suggests that 3.85 billion people currently in water-stressed areas will benefit while only 2.7 billion people will experience a downside.
Ah, that supports common sense about freeing up water as the polar ice caps melt! This study is significant because it is the basis for UN policy on global warming and Mr. Arnell is part of the scientific exhibit A for the global-warming high priests. How can that be? Well, because they and the UN Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change selectively censored Arnell’s study in their report, only focusing on the downside (i.e. the 2.7 billion).
When confronted with his own original study, Arnell defended the IPCC report, and is quoted declaring there was not enough room in the 2,823-page report to talk about the upside for 3.85 billion people and besides “having a bit more water is not as good as having a bit less is bad.”
What are the regions that will benefit when the next global warming comes? Probably not the USA — having most of Texas under water is not beneficial, although Alaska would boom. Among the obvious geo-political winners will be Russia and Canada.
Russian landmass dwarfs all other countries, but a lot of it is now inhospitably frozen, making the huge deposits of natural resources hard to get at. Already there is talk about having a permanently open north-west shipping passage that will be a boom for Canada and render the Panama Canal meaningless. Or as Mr. Arnell might say – good for Canada, bad for Panama.
In short, global warming and global cooling will inevitably repeat, unless humanity can figure out how to interfere with nature. Is it possible we will see Al Gore get a Nobel Prize for advocating research into retarding Mother Nature’s cycles? Furthermore, some “subcycles” like the medieval global warming cycle can happen fast enough (300 to 600 years) to be disruptive to humanity and the geo-political balance as we know it.
And so, who is behind the misinformation about global warming? Leading scientists and the UN are hiding their own data and distorting conclusions. Dissenting scientists are being smeared, blocked from publishing their research, and starved of research funding. Is it big business that sees a way to make money?
Al Gore is said to be worth over $100 million in “green investments.” Is it powers that are more concerned about geo-political shifts? What is their end goal?