“Climate Change”: Just Another Fraud on Consumers

I sometimes wonder how all this “global warming” and “climate change” stuff got started. Who decided that it was some major catastrophe in process, for which we should spend billions of dollars in a meaningless fashion? And how did so many people get duped into believing this lie?

Well, one person we can thank, is “internet inventing” Al Gore. Never mind that he heats enormous houses and flies on his own private jet, both creating a bunch of naughty carbon. He says we need to reduce carbon emissions… “we” being everyone else.

The Huffington Post, of all publications, is taking Gore to task for his promotion of this non-issue.

The problem with “global warming” or “climate change” (the new buzz phrase for use when instances of lower temperatures are observed) is that it’s total nonsense. The climate has always been changing. So what’s the difference with the modern changes in climate? Nothing. The only thing that’s been proven is that the weather changes. (Duh.) No one has actually proven that anything we humans do has influenced that.

The article points out:

One last thought on the expression “climate change”: It is a retreat from the earlier expression used by alarmists, “manmade global warming,” which was more easily debunked. There are people in Mr. Gore’s camp who now use instances of cold temperatures to prove the existence of “climate change,” which is absurd, obscene, even.

The article also points out Gore’s tendency to refer to those who decry his phony science as “flat-Earthers.” Oh, right. Because we don’t believe your phony climate theories, we must also think the Earth is flat? We don’t think the earth is flat. (It’s not.) And we don’t think global warming is a problem. (It’s not.)

If anyone should be called a flat-Earther, it should be Gore, since he completely ignores the science that debunks his theories about the climate. He says in his movie An Inconvenient Truth that there is an obvious correlation between termperature going up and carbon dioxide increasing. i.e. He says increased carbon dixoide causes warmer temperatures.

The article points out:

You are probably wondering by now — and if you are not, you should be — which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years. In fact, the relationship is not “complicated.” When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing. For this reason, warm and cold years show up on the Mauna Loa C02 measurements even in the short term. For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest C02 increase since measurements have been kept. When did the highest C02 increase take place? During the super El Niño year of 1998.

But who would want to let actual science get in the way of a phony conspiracy theory?

The whole point is that carbon dioxide hasn’t been proven to be the catalyst for warmer temperatures. It is simply the result of warmer temperatures. And warmer (or colder) temperatures are a result of….???? Well, the changing of the climate. Which has been happening since the beginning of time.

Read the article for the whole scientific explanation of how temperature changes and the interaction between heat, light, moisture, and temperatures. The bottom line is that the cycles of the ocean influence our temperature most, not some made up theory that’s proven to be false.

So why waste tons of time and money on a non-existent problem?

To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong. Particulate pollution, such as that causing the Asian brown cloud, is a real problem. Two billion people on Earth living without electricity, in darkened huts and hovels polluted by charcoal smoke, is a real problem.

So, let us indeed start a Manhattan Project-like mission to create alternative sources of energy. And, in the meantime, let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day.

The article closes with some interesting fact about the melting ice we’ve all heard about. It’s often mentioned that in the summer of 2007, there was “unprecedented” melting of Arctic ice. The only problem? Ice in the Arctic is in a constant state of melting and re-freezing. Even better? At the same time, Antarctica had the highest level of sea ice ever. I wonder why Gore and his people don’t mention this?

21 thoughts on ““Climate Change”: Just Another Fraud on Consumers”

  1. Please stick with investigation of financial fraud where your credentials may be of value. There is enough unbiased, quantitative climatic data, some of it dating from the 19th century to adequately support the empirical accounts of climate change made by both scientifically trained oberservers and amatuer naturalists and gardeners such as myself. Do not denigrate the very important changes in busines and behavior that need to be made socially so that we do not destroy the planet through hubris.

  2. Oh, I don’t disagree that the climate changes. It has always changed. So we are in agreement there.

  3. Tracy,

    Rather than relying upon Al Gore and various conservative pundits and journalists to obtain information about climate change, why don’t you actually look into the scientific research? Neither Mr. Gore nor the Harold Amble are credentialed experts in climate change. Mr. Gore has never submitted peer-reviewed scientific research, nor has Mr. Amble. The Huffington Post is not a refereed scientific publication. If you were to actually explore the scientific consensus, you would see that climate change (which actually does mean global warming) is factual reality.

    The National Academies of Science of every industrialized nation have endorsed the concept of human-caused global warming. Almost every professional scientific organization in the United States endorses the concept of global warming. There are no professional scientific organizations who deny human-caused global warming. The last professional organization to change its stance is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who changed from an opposing position to a non-commital position in their official position statement. They changed because of the threat of declining membership if they continued to deny the scientific reality. Mind you, petroleum geologists certainly do not have a vested interest in supporting climate change.

    I could go through Mr. Amble’s article and refute a great deal of it, based mostly on his own weasel words and contradicting claims, and also on my own scientific understanding, but it would take twice as long as his article to refute it. Suffice it to say, he does not have any scientific credentials, and the only source he cites is a book, rather than any peer-reviewed scientific research.

    While Wikipedia is not normally considered a reliable source, the following article is simply a list of scientific orgaizations and their stated position on climate change. It’s easy to verify or refute.

    Professor Steve Dutch at the University of Wisconsin – Green Bay is a professor of geology, with an interest in pseudoscience. He has already addressed the Huffington Post article in:
    Professor Dutch also has an article related to climate change/global warming in general:

  4. It appears the professor and I agree. The weather changes. There is CO2, and it traps heat. And Antarctica had more ice. All in agreement here.

  5. Actually, you and the professor don’t agree at all. Yes, weather does change. You are aware, however, that we’re talking about climate, which is different than weather?

    The amount of ice in Antarctica was higher, but by a statistically insignificant amount (that is to say, the margin of error for the trend line was smaller than the slope). The ice in the arctic, on the other hand, was drastically lower and still declining.

    Frankly, I’m really surprised that a professional fraud investigator could be duped with regard to one of the biggest frauds of our lifetime. There is absolutely no controversy in scientific circles regarding global warming, and the fact that humans contribute to it. But you’ll blindly believe an article by someone with no scientific credentials, just because the “conservative” platform says there is no global warming. Well, maybe “conservatives” say there’s no global warming because the Dems and libs have built a platform out of saying there is, but that should have no bearing on whether or not the truth is believable.

  6. Lee,

    Are you suggesting that since temperatures have been warmer at one point than they are now, there’s no way humans could affect the average global temperature?

    By that reasoning, since the dinosaurs went extinct long before humans existed, humans have never been responsible for driving a species to extinction, right?

  7. Yes, Paul, the climate changes. Yes there was less ice in the Arctic and more ice in Antarctica (even if someone gives a reason why I should ignore that there was more). Here’s an interesting question to ponder: Which changes in the climate are naturally occurring and which changes in the climate are directly attributed to human actions? I eagerly await your reply.

  8. Way to mix affirming the consequent with a straw man argument, Paul.

    Let’s try another question. Mars is warming up, is that also our responsibility?

  9. Lee,

    There’s no straw man there. Man wasn’t responsible for the Earth warming millions of years ago (nor Mars). He is partly responsible for the warming now. The analogy I gave illustrated that though things may have occured previously without any help from mankind, that doesn’t mean man is powerless to manipulate the natural world.


    I didn’t say the ice growth in the Antarctic was irrelevant, I said it was statistically insignificant. In other words, there may be more now, but the difference is so slight that the trend of growth isn’t even necessarily positive. It’s just one data point that’s higher than others. By the way, no one mentions that in spite of slightly more ice at the Antarctic, it is actually warmer than it used to be. To which I’m sure you’ll reply, “Of course, climate changes, it always has …” Well, if climate does change, and it is getting warmer, then why all the emphasis on the additional ice? I have a feeling the only reason you bring it up is to try to show that there is a lot of doubt in climate change study, which there isn’t.

    I can’t say EXACTLY what changes are attributable to man, no one can. But that doesn’t mean that the Earth isn’t warming, now does it? And it certainly doesn’t mean that man is in no way responsible either, does it? Scientists have ascertained that the Earth is warming. There’s no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is a great deal more CO2 in the atmosphere than there would be if man weren’t burning billions of tons of carbon for fuel. How is that not going to make it warmer?

  10. Good gracious! Sounds like we have another Al Gore here. “…if man weren’t burning billions of tons of carbon for fuel.”

    So, does that include everyone but you? Do you ride your bike everywhere? Do you never fly anywhere in the world? Do you use blankets rather than heat your home, even with a fire in the fireplace? Do you use no products whatsoever? You know, of course, that the manufacture of that blanket and bicycle, and your computer that you are complaining on, pollutes?

    Get a grip. Al Gore is an opportunist who saw a great deal of money to be made in promoting this hysteria. The fact that he buys carbon credits negates his abuses? So, poor folks must protect the environment, yet the rich folks can live the luxurious, “polluting” life? Oh, please.

    I think that Michael Crichton was onto something when he wrote that scientific research grants are given when the grant writers “produce” a convincing, serious problem that must be solved. This hysteria is producing monies that are now available, and there are plenty of money grabbers. No money, no research.

    The AA of Petroleum Geologists changed their posture because of pressure? How many other associations are also jumping on the bandwagon, so as to be seen in a positive light? Is this the not “a lot of doubt in climate change study” that you speak of?

    And the environmental organizations are also huge promoters of hysteria. It is necessary to keep the money flowing in their direction. Crichton also had a valid point when he suggested that environmental organizations be frequently dismantled and reorganized to avoid this kind of cronyism and to quit spending the money on the organization itself.

  11. Climate Change is Identity Politics at it’s highest level. And the stridency surrounding certain positions is more akin to religious fervor than real scientific thinking, which is tragic. Saying that there is “no real debate” is patently false.

    “Consensus thinking” doesn’t equal being right. Few things in science are ever proven 100% true except mathematical proofs. Sxity years ago, the mainstream in geology disregarded plate tectonics as kooky. Now it’s accepted. Heresy and orthodoxy change places over time. Choosing a position and nailing yourself to it is not a scientific mindset.

    Everyone who is emotional on this subject (whichever way they lean) needs to read Charles Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. This is neither the first instance of apocalyptic mania in human history, nor will it be the last.

  12. So what Paul is saying is that there is some link between human activity and the climate. He can’t quantify that link in any way, or prove the level of causation. For all we know, that link could be STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. Yet we should spend zillions of dollars trying to reduce something that we don’t know needs reduction, and hope for the best? That’s just silly.

  13. Has anyone here actually read anything I’ve written any deeper than Greenpeace=Algore=savetheplanet=orelsewedie?

    Duped, (Ironically appropriate name, BTW)

    Well, I suppose it was fun having a grown up discussion without ad hominem attacks, but all good things must come to an end. As I stated in my original post, Al Gore isn’t an expert in climate change, and he has nothing to say on the subject that I would listen to. Yes, he’s an opportunist, and just like global warming deniers (or skeptics or whatever) he twisted facts and misrepresented data to make his position sound better for his purposes. Just an FYI, about 3 billions tons of carbon are burned every year as fuel, that’s in the form of petroleum, coal, and natural gas. I’m not screaming hysterically about that, it’s just a fact. That’s how much we’re turning into CO2 every year.

    To answer your barrage of irrelevant questions: no. And I’m not condoning going back to the glory days of neanderthal-hood. In fact, I haven’t condoned any environmental activism. So learn to read a post before you respond to it, please.

    Lee D.,

    Could you provide a reference for any scientific research or paper or professional seminar discussion that would indicate global warming skepticism among professional researchers? You’re right that nothing is “proven” 100%, but that doesn’t mean we get to disregard reality until it is. Gravity is just a theory after all. A couple of things you said really stuck out to me: “Choosing a position and nailing yourself to it is not a scientific mindset.” and “Everyone who is emotional on this subject” At what point have you said anything that would support your position, or even show that you’ve objectively reviewed enough pertinent information to form an opinion on the subject? Let’s keep an eye on glass houses and so forth, no?


    Apparently you don’t read any better than some others on this board (which I should have ascertained by what passes for credible information in your world). I never said we should spend “zillions” of dollars (I’m not even sure a zillion is a real number) fixing anything. What I’ve said is that global warming is reality. It’s easy to find whether the science backs up that assertion, but most people would rather rely on a pundit (ala Harold Amble) to feed them an opinion than go make an informed one on their own.

    Anyhoo, I’m going to sign off this discussion now. As is usually the case in these kind of things, you’ve all inanely shouted me down without anything to back up your assertions, so I’ll just leave you to your deep thoughts of “The only thing that’s been proven is that the weather changes. (Duh.)” Scientific thought at its highest, indeed.

  14. Well Paul, you apparently agree with me as well. This has been an interesting discussion, to say the least. Thanks for your participation. (Is “anyhoo” a word?)

  15. Al Gore has really stepped in it this time. He could have spent the rest of his global warming career collecting money by spreading fear over events that were a century or at least half century in the future. Oh, but that wasn’t good enough for Big Al. He’s now told the biggest global warming whopper of his alarmist career:


    When I heard this I assumed it was a rumor started by skeptics to make Gore look bad. It wasn’t until I viewed the video that I realized what Gore had done. Gore has started a five year credibility countdown timer ticking and it’s up to all of us to make sure that he is held accountable and proven to be a fraud when his dire prediction aimed at drumming up support doesn’t come true.

    The mainstream media isn’t going to let this video see the light of day because they, unlike Al, understand the precarious position in which he has placed himself.

    It is therefore up to us to spread the word about Big Al’s prediction. He must be exposed for the fear mongering opportunist that he has become.

    To view the video, please visit the following site and click on the picture of Big Al holding up five fingers.


    While visiting this site, you might want to watch a preview of the film “Not Evil, Just wrong” or watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” which is found in the video section. Happy Viewing!!!

  16. Ad hominem? I fail to see where I attacked your character, Paul. Merely asking you if you use the products that are a part of the “problem” does not constitute an attack. I did notice that you sidestepped that one, however.

    Fact is, Mr. Grownup, that you are guilty of your own little Latin phrase: ironically appropriate name, glass houses, and Tracy not reading well does not add anything productive to an otherwise interesting debate.

    You mentioned the burning of “3 billions tons of carbon every year”. And your point is?

  17. Tracy, if you think there is no global warming, no problem. But readers should feel that your arguments againts global warming make sense. Right now, that has not happened.

  18. http://www.infowars.com/climate-gate-is-your-fight/
    November 27, 2009
    Those in the know are fully aware that the mainstream media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the State. You’re reading this, so you’re probably one of those people. It is so easy to fall into the mental trap that, if you know something, then how can it not be common knowledge? The sheep don’t even know what the carbon tax is, or what’s at stake in Copenhagen. They are completely and utterly clueless.
    For the rest of us, the fight is joined. The globalists have thrown their best punches while we played rope-a-dope. Even before this scandal broke, they were running out of gas. Their gloves were heavy. A global agreement to supposedly cut carbon emissions, if you believed what the media told you (I don’t), was in already in jeopardy prior to the release of the hacked emails. These revelations are a flurry of knockout blows, if only we’re able to break through the media blackout and propaganda protecting these criminals from being fully exposed. The media will not be our ally in this.
    The globalists, the eugenicists, are in this for the long haul. All of their eggs are in the climate hoax basket. They’re not going to stop now. Why would they? We all know this was never about climate change in the first place. We knew that they knew that it was the sun driving the climate, and that temperatures haven’t risen in at least ten years. If this were about saving the Earth – if they truly were not evil, just wrong, as the newest documentary naively suggests – then the climate scientists would’ve packed it in a long time ago.
    No, what this is and always was about is an excuse for global government. This they certainly do not deny. Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary General, penned an op-ed in the New York Times last month in which he called for a global government funded by carbon taxes. The new president of the European Union, Herman van Rompuy, said that 2009 was the first year of global governance, and that the Copenhagen climate conference would be “another step towards the global management of our planet”. In July, Al Gore spoke at Oxford University and stated that global governance, funded by the Waxman-Markey cap and trade tax which will be voted upon in the Senate within the coming weeks, is necessary for combating “climate change”.
    The globalist plan for world government – the elimination of national sovereignty, ie the destruction of the United States of America – must be fully exposed. We know that this scheme is completely unknown to the vast majority of people. Perhaps now that Glenn Beck is finally speaking of this conspiracy, the Fox “News” crowd will get their heads out of their rears and realize it’s not “liberals” behind this, it’s globalists – there are prominent Republicans and so-called conservative leaders pushing this as well. Unfortunately, because Beck and Fox actively promote the left-right paradigm, the establishment will still try to paint the issue as an attack by right wing hacks and special interests.
    Whatever, is happening to my family’s and my lifestyle without us having our say? Find out go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

  19. Lord Christopher Monckton, reporting from the summit, has stated that the only goal of the conference was to implement the framework and the funding for a world government ?quot; which he asserts has been achieved.“That is the one thing that they are definitely going to succeed in doing here and they will announce that as a victory in itself, and they will be right because that is the one and only single aim of this entire global warming conference, to establish the mechanism, the structure, and above all the funding for a world government.” They are going to take from the western countries the very large financial resources required to do that.” Monckton said, adding “They will disguise it by saying they are setting up a $100 billion fund for adaptation to climate change in third world countries, but actually, this money will almost all be gobbled up by the international bureaucracy.”“The first thing they will do, and the one thing I think they were always going to succeed in doing at this conference is to agree to establish what will be delicately called ‘the institutional framework’. Now that is a code word for world government.
    PS: We need to establish the truth about Climate Change from credible Scientists’ stop these Climate Summits before we’re all Carbon taxed to death and acquire some UN and Elitist arrests! Like for example Al Gore! Folks we are actually dealing with criminals here! I don’t know if the world figures them too big to arrest or what but our Sovereignty is in peril of being lost! Help me stop them by stepping up and making your opinions known!

    Take a look at this video clip with a little humor that states the case of where things stand with the CRU East Anglia Email Leaks! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8O-E_GN0Kg&feature=player_embedded

Leave a Reply