A MarkJ redux: Who’s behind the global-warming conspiracy?
Waves wash over the seawall near high tide at Battery Park in New York Monday. | AP Photo
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.
AgnosticPreachersKid | Wikimedia Commons
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).
Tomas-Castelazo | Wikimedia Commons
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?
Click here for MarkJ’s answer to those questions.
October 31, 2012 - 6:00 AM
Who is behind the misinformation about global warming? Look in the mirror, fella. Look in the mirror.
Great essay, Mark. Right on the money.
The same folks were running around warning us about global cooling just 35 years ago. See Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World.” I guess performing Mike’s nature trick not an option back then?
“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.”–So true, Mark. And this is just how Dan R and company want it.
Dan,
May be true may not be true but I frankly don’t care. In my opinion all it does is cost unnecessary money and does not add anything to producing goods or services that are necessary and actually add value. Sort of like running out of fossil fuels, don’t care. My Suburban got 15 miles to the gallon last week end on a Lacrosse road trip and I’m very pleased. Drill baby drill and mine baby mine. Keep those coal miners employed.
As Sandy has shown, global warming is very much real and doing real economic damage to our country. Damage that could potentially get much much worse if drought conditions persist. It’s now too late to avoid many of the worst effects of global warming in the coming years (food shortages due to drought are already beginning) but we can at least take a step back from some of the more apocalyptic scenarios. That means using sites like http://us.amovens.com/en to set up carpools, which, in addition to reducing carbon emissions, also has the added benefit of cutting your fuel costs.
I hope all that are interested in whether Global Warming exists or not also are aware that in the last 25 years, the number of global temperature recording stations have decreased by half (something like 88 down to 42) because of funding issues, no one to man them regularly, etc.
In that same time frame, data has shown that temps are increasing. Everyone knows that half as many data points absolutely skews the data terribly.
NASA scientists and others will also tell you that ground level temperature readings via satellite are not accurate as well and should not be trusted to give the same reading as a weather station located in Minsk, Sydney, or wherever.
In my opinion, “man-made” global warning has been a man-created schtick to achieve political ends… purely and simply.
In light of what happened here this week, this piece is very ironic.
To paraphrase Seth Myers on Jimmy Fallon the other night, we currently live in a country where more of our politicians believe that these catastrophic storms are caused by gay marriage than by climate change.
Funny, Hootiefish.
Like some of the posters here, I agree that we may not know for sure about global warming. But, unlike them, I try live like it may be true, and mankind’s fault.
So, here are some of the ways I am taking action:
I don’t drive a huge, wasteful car.
I moved closer to work.
I do have energy efficient appliances, including a tankless water heater.
I do use a set back thermostat that allows me to minimize heating and cooling expenses.
These actions have one thing in common. They do not adversely affect my quality of life one iota. In fact, I save money. What a concept.
Americans are among the most wasteful folks on the planet. We should not be proud of that.
The planet WILL survive no matter what we do to it. WE may not survive, but try to convince a county where millions of people still smoke cigarettes that is important.
The earth will heal… perhaps after we extinct ourselves.
What about the cost of the clean up after each of these worsening disasters costs “unnecessary money and does not add anything to producing goods or services”? This is a vicious cycle we have entered and if we are indeed contributing to it, we need to freakin’ stop! Dismissing science that is inconvenient or costly is not helping.
I wasn’t a great collegiate master debater like Mark. But I read it twice trying to figure out what exactly he was arguing. Was it that “global warmers … have grossly distorted the facts”, that man-made climate change doesn’t exist, or that the effects of man-made climate change will be small?
Instead of support for any of these arguments, there was instead a blatant attempt to equate scientific facts and knowledge with faith and religious doctrine by the repeated use (7 times) of the term “high priests” for climate change scientists, as well as the use of the terms “heretic”, “Inquisition”, and “orthodox”.
Also, you used Al Gore’s name repeatedly (5 times), often calling him a “front man” to create a divisive central figurehead for climate change. I assume this was because it’s easier to believe an argument if there is a divisive face to it instead of trying to get people to believe there is a massive conspiracy by the whole scientific community?
I particularly enjoyed the last two sentences that were, ummm, I don’t know the term, I’ll go with assertive questions. You know, the type Erich von Daniken used in Chariots of the Gods and every crazy alien/conspiracy show on TV uses.
You know your argument is in trouble when you start using techniques that the crazy hair guy from Ancient Aliens (George Tsoukalos) uses. e.g. Perhaps aliens have taken over the body of Al Gore to lead us astray to make their takeover of our planet easier? (Farfetched? Maybe not. Remember how much larger Gore was when he started making climate change public? The difference was about the size of a “Gray” alien?)
To me “man made” is irrelevant, if man’s actions exacerbates or contributes.
It seems that ecosystems behave rather like organisms — in that their individual viability can accommodate a narrow range of ambient change but not a major change. For example, most mammals’ endothermy cannot survive a wide ambient temperature change.
The same is true for some in for the range of a mammal’s internal temperature. Our bodies must remain within a narrow, safe temperature range, for our long term functionality.
Say your child had a fever of 100º. Would it be time to take drastic action to save his/her life? Say 101º, 102º, 103º, 104º, 105º, etc?
If you knew that your action (the clothing you had on the child) or your inaction (failing to cool down the child, take the child for professional help, etc) could exacerbate or contribute to a problem cause by something else (say an infection) would you fail to act because the primary cause was something else?
We have a good idea when a human’s internal temperature will lead to disaster. Do we know what the failure point of the ecosystem is?
Sandi#11 – Are you suggesting that Sandy the hurricane is caused by man made global warming? Why would you assume that. For several decades statisticians have claimed that NYC area was long over due for a catastrophic hurricane.
The earth has had many warming and cooling cycles. It will have many more – unless man intervenes to prevent these cycles, which are natural.
Dave#12 – this is a 2 and half your old essay that Dan posted while I am on vacation. Actually this is Part 1 of a 2 part essay. In the 2nd essay, also posted on this blog in March, 2010, I answer the questions that I pose in this essay.
Dan was supposed to provide the link to that 2nd part, but I see that this intention fell through the cracks. I think that had you seen Part 2, you probably would have commented differently. But maybe not.
I am not suggesting any weather event is “caused by man made global warming“. For a smart man, that was a dumb conclusion from my remarks.
Science seems to think we are exacerbating the atmospheric problem and the entirety of evidence seems to indicate that if that is true, the cost to recover from the disasters will cost more than the mitigating efforts we should be working more fiercely on. On the chance that some pretty darn smart people are right, we should take more action and try to stem the tide if we can. This is not fun.
Forest fires are natural too, but we fight them when they encroach don’t we?
Falling and breaking a bone is natural, but we don’t choose to leave it like that.
Vehicle and Power Plant emissions, factory farm effluents, fracking, business waste, deforestation, and other activities the world has engaged in to some true excess cannot help but have an impact on our air, water and soil. How that affects weather or climate or disasters remains to be seen but it is not a stretch to think they might freakin’ matter!
A better question, more easily answered, is “who’s behind the anti-global warming conspiracy.”
Sandi#16, your comment about forest fires reminds me how outraged many, inlcuding myself were, when Ronald Reagan cut back the forced fire service which would directly effect the service’ coverage of the shrinking California redwood forests.
The redwood foreests have been progressively less healthy from the 1920s onwards. There were outragous scenes of large fires in the redwood forests that were blamed on the Reagen cuts. And then a miraculous thing happened. The forests started springing back almost immediately where the fires were.
It comes out that redwoods need period fires. It kills the parisites that grows in them, and it stimulates the roots to produce new trees. It comes out, that while the seeds from cones can produce trees, the healthiest new trees spring from the roots after a fire. Oh, and the redwoods have a flame retardant chemical in the trunks, so that the very tall trees are not endangered by the fires on the ground.
Man’s intervention in natures cycles is inevitably led by “very smart” academics. But it backfires so often.
Global warming and global cooling cycles are natural and have existed since the beginning of life on this planet, long predating humans.
Anyone for trying to retard global climate cycles is against nature.
That’s forest fire service….in the above commment (not forced fire service)….a Freudian slip?