Share
You could earn SmartPoints on this page!SmartPoint Coin

[A New Itch] Global Warming: The Grand Deception — an article on the Smart Living Network
June 7, 2012 at 4:10 PMComments: 21 Faves: 1

Global Warming: The Grand Deception

By
From the A New Itch Blog Series

"Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

I must confess to being a little at a loss as to how to present the information that needs to be presented in order to illuminate the lie that is "The Global Warming Scare." History has proven, time and again, that once the mob has latched on to an idea, prying them away from it is near impossible.

That being said, what has been presented as fact by the media, and much of the "scientific" community, is an affront to rational minds everywhere. The statistical basis for global warming is a manufactured history that attempts to sweep under the proverbial rug two distinct climate events that happened recently (relative to the lifespan of our beautiful planet of course).

Understand this: By no means am I condoning the way we currently treat our planet. By no means am I saying that our planet isn't currently warming...it is. I simply refuse to digest a lie written by greedy businessmen and scientists who have forgotten what it means to marvel at the majesty of the planet we live with.

The "Hockey Stick"

In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report explaining their (then) global1"current" understanding of global climate change for the past 1,000 years. In this report there was a graph (shown on the left) detailing two very significant global climate changes that had occurred in the reported time period: The Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age.

In 1995, not five years after that report was issued (quietly, and to no one in particular), the IPCC released a 5 year climate report, to much fanfare, that contained the phrase, "a discernible human influence on global climate."

It was at this time that the nefarious scientific gears of Dr. Michael Mann were already mechanizing into a lie of global proportions, and in 1999 he was the primary author of a paper published in "Geophysical Researcher Letters."

In this paper, nestled firmly between scientific hyperbole and manufactured statistics, sat the "Hockey Stick" diagram (shown on right). In this diagram, Mann and his cohorts essentially rub out any trace of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age by labeling them as statisticalglobal2 anomalies, creating a slowly cooling line up until the beginning of the 20th century.

According to Mann's graph, once the 20th century began, the entire climate went haywire (those who understand, even just a shred, how large the universe is and how large our planet is should scoff at a change of this proportion happening "over night"). To prove this, he combined surface temperature records from the 20th century and tree ring analysis from before that period.

The surface temperature records are still used as a bar to measure global temperature changes, but they are gathered in the same manner that specific census data is gathered, from a population/area that is already known to produce a desired result. In this case, the records were drawn from urban heat islands (metropolitan areas that are statistically warmer than the surrounding rural areas). Had Mann used satellite data, the more accurate representation of global climate change, current century data would not have shown as great a difference as it does in his hockey stick diagram.

As for the tree ring analysis of previous centuries, this method of climate measurement has largely been discarded due to all the variables associated in the development of a tree from sapling to adult (ie. competitive growth conditions, frost, snow levels/duration, etc.). Not a very good basis for an entire movement, in my opinion.

The worse part of our societies acceptance of this theory is the complete lack of scientific skepticism in which it was greeted. The greenhouse industry and the scientists involved with the paper backed it so earnestly that the always eager masses accepted it without pause, fully embracing the marketing campaign that would pretend it was a scientific discovery.

The Truth

The truth is, the Earth is currently progressing through a warm period of similar, or less, severity than the Medieval Warm Period (a difference of 1 degree Celcius), but it has very little to do with the human species. Solar activity is the source of all three climate changes represented in the last 1100 years.

Carbon 14 isotopes are used to measure solar activity prior to 1600 AD, and they point to an increase uniquely similar to the current solar activity.

What is even more telling is the 70 year documented period in which the sun presented almost global3NO SUN SPOTS. This period is known as the Maunder Minimum. The Maunder Minimum directly corresponds to the lowest temperatures presented during the Little Ice Age.

To be quite frank, it boggles my mind that we can honestly think that our EXTREMELY limited time on the Earth would have enough of an effect that it would cause such a drastic difference in GLOBAL temperature.

Yes, the way we treat the planet has global consequences, but it shouldn't take massive deception to make us consider this. I encourage you to open your mind to the possibility that not everything presented to you may always be true. Seek the truth out yourself.

Please ask any question (or proclaim your disdain) you feel necessary below...

For the record, my local temperature history (Grand Rapids MI) according to reported average temperatures from local weather stations and the National Weather Service.

June 15th 1950 - 71.9 F

June 15th 1960 - 60.8 F

June 15th 1970 - 67.1 F

June 15th 1980 - 64.2 F

June 15th 1990 - 72 F

June 15th 2000 - 67.5 F

June 15th 2011 - 63.1 F

June 15th 2012 - Most likely higher due to La Nina

Sources:

[10] Houghton, J. et al. "Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change", Cambridge Univ. Press, UK, 1995

J T Houghton, G J Jenkins, J J Ephraums, Eds,, "Climate Change; The IPCC Scientific Assessment". 1990 . Cambridge University Press, p.202

Magnuson J. et al., "Historical Trends in Lake and River Ice Cover in the Northern Hemisphere", Science, v.289, p.1743, 8 Sept 2000

National Research Council, "Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change", National Academy Press, 2000

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1505/features/lia.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

What did you think?

28%
YES!
18%
OMG!
9%
EPIC
11%
FAIL
11%
HUH?
12%
CUTE
12%
YUM!

Previously:In An Ivy League Of Their Own

More from E.M. Wollof from SLN Others Are Reading

21 Comments

  • Great Blog! Has anyone ever read State of Fear by Michael Crichton? I love that book because it shows that there is always someone behind what we hear. The free exchange of information is over. Everything is backed by someone, whether it is profitable or not. Excellent work of literature, along with this blog.

  • Much appreciated Rex. As for the free exchange of information, though it makes me tremendously sad, I couldn't agree more. The positive part of the situation is that the truth can not be withheld indefinitely. I have a feeling that very soon we will see the proverbial levee break in the minds of the population...where we go from there is the part that gives me pause.

  • The free exchange of information never happened. It cannot, because we cannot handle the truth. As a species, we can sometimes work together to make improvements for the good of all. But, as individuals, we fall back to grabbing, burning, stock piling, and spoiling everything we can possibly use to our personal betterment.

    Ask me if global warming is hype, and, indeed, I'll agree that mankind's role in warming the earth is highly exaggerated. Ask if we've polluted the crap out of the earth, and I dare you to find someone who doesn't agree.

    The hype of global warming was a necessary evil to shock society into recognizing that we're soiling our growth medium too much. Threaten people with PCB and mercury-laden fish (OK, limit fish in diet), arsenic-loaded vegetables (don't eat asparagus from NJ), or even skin cancer (ozone layer hype just taught us to use sunscreen)... none of these will evoke action.

    Now, threaten to turn my children's backyard into a desert wasteland, submerge NYC under meters of water, or push swarms of insects carrying deadly, exotic diseases into my yard... now you've got my attention.

    Individuals respond to apocalypse, so we create it, promote it, lie about it. Whatever it takes.

  • Sprouty, the greater good solution is not a solution at all. The basic premise that a small group of people can make that choice for the whole of society is flawed beyond explanation and we will never progress as a society if it continues.

    These elitist groups that withhold information from the general population because they feel like they can't handle it are the reason that we are where we are today, a baseless society that has no care outside of consuming goods. Is it any wonder that the groups that makes these decisions also happen to be the wealthiest people on the planet?

    I would say that lying to the general population in order to cause panic and the reaction that you want is the absolute basis of tyranny. We should be presented with the information and left to choose what we do with it. That way, actual calamity can occur and true attention can be paid to the issues that need it.

  • I'm not saying it's right, just saying it is. Life is disparity, struggle, and loss for many. Whether we want it or not, the elite groups have, do, and will, at least for the foreseeable future, control. I'm not a big fan of parasitic wasps and the gruesome death their larvae inflict on the host, but they have their pest-controlling 'benefits' too.

  • Nothing will change if we continue to resign ourselves to the way things are. Yes, the task may seem insurmountable, but without trying we become no better than the tyrants pulling the strings now.

    This unwillingness to act is a symptom of "settling" down in life, it always has been. Parents look at their idealistic offspring and chuckle, "Some day he will learn that there is just nothing that can be done." This settling down is the reason our complacent society exists. Thoughtless pawns that are slaves to industry, unwilling to change how they live for fear that it may cause them discomfort.

    I respect you sprouty, more importantly I respect how you carry yourself outside of the confines of the office space. I can't really bring myself to believe that you say these things with any real conviction when you so obviously behave a different way outside the system. You are living proof that what I am saying is true.

  • Also, comparing an evolutionary adaptation to a conscious choice? You're better than that...

  • With all due respect, I don't really understand the issue with global warming that you are taking. When you acknowledge that data showing the globe is clearly getting warmer, I'm curious how you would define "global warming" if not in that way.

    I am also confused by the point being made with the two graphs. Looking at the two, it seems clear enough to me that temperatures were warmer in 1000 and dipped around 1500 and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the points presented in this article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

    I personally believe we humans have become like cancer on out planet. We seriously need to stop thinking about ourselves as rulers of the earth and begin understanding that we are just one very small component of the larger organism that is our home planet. This abdication of responsibility for our actions or the belief that we are powerless will do nothing to help us. The system for living we have in place is deeply flawed. I live next to a river, but I can't swim in it or pull fish from it because the water is so full of poison. There was an air quality warning issued on the radio yesterday for my area.

    Ultimately, whether or not you choose to believe that the amount of carbon we are emitting today can have an affect on our environment (as I personally do), the fact that our water and air is less clean and our food contains more toxic chemicals than it has throughout the grand majority of our time on this planet is there staring us in the face. This trend is not something that would have been true without our industrialized society. We need to find a way to live in harmony with the rest of our body.

  • First, I take no issue with the fact that humans are having a negative impact on the planet...we are. We have poisoned countless natural resources, sucked the life blood from the planet with gluttonous intent, and made excuses as to why it was necessary at every turn.

    What I take issue with is using manufactured statistics to create a fear campaign that drives people to dedicate more money to the corporations that made the choices to kill the planet in the first place. Global warming does exist, but it has much more to do with the planetary climate cycle and less to the do with the inhabitants of the planet.

    As for the graphs, it is really about the presentation of information. In the first graph, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are represented as documented changes in climate over an extended period of time. In the second graph, of which the darkest lines represent the only verifiable climate data evidence, the MWP and LIA are represented as statistical anomalies, not scientific fact. In the scientific community, statistical anomalies represent a vague possibility, not something that can be presented as factual information.

    As for the website that you posted. All the information presented by the author comes from IPCC sources, or governmental agencies that are tied to the IPCC. This infectious disease of an organization and it's greenhouse company backers are the reason that the Global Warming Scare began, so please forgive me for not paying any credence at all to the information presented by a site that is so obviously under their influence.

    There are very few who recognize the true intention of the Global Warming Scare. It has nothing to do with improving the planet, only milking the mindless consumer. As you can see, all the scaring in the world has done nothing to change the direction that we are heading. We still produce copious amounts of the products that have caused the planet pain, we still drill deep in her skin, we still charge for her pain, all the while producing lies to hide the more devious acts that actually occur on a daily basis.

    Is it so hard to believe that your governing body would feed you lies to take your eyes off of what is really going on? Have you all not seen this before?

  • "There are very few who recognize the true intention of the Global Warming Scare. It has nothing to do with improving the planet, only milking the mindless consumer."

    Who's milking me and how?

    "Is it so hard to believe that your governing body would feed you lies to take your eyes off of what is really going on?"

    I'm certainly not a mindless government follower. I am well aware that people in power often lie or manipulate to their benefit. But what is it you think is really going on that they don't want us to see? The most powerful corporations and biggest polluters have multiple governmental insiders and I can guarantee they would rather we all NOT believe in global warming.

  • Your government is milking you. When they offer billions of dollars, of your tax money, in grants to Green Energy companies that were created at the onset of this whole scam to produce profit margins that make up for their steadily declining energy reserves.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

    Some of the world's most respected scientists have had their careers rendered inept because of this lie. They have been shunned by those they once called their peers for not drinking the kool-aid.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

  • So they schemed to make people believe our society was contributing to the changes in our environment, hired scientists an experts and created evidence all to make money with green companies? In spite of the fact the majority of profitable companies are not green and have no desire to be? This seems counterproductive.

  • I think your understanding of profitable companies is skewed. See if you recognize any of these:

    Invesco Mortgage: Recently engaged in a "green" housing initiative

    American Capital: "Committed to working in a green friendly environment"

    CYS Investments
    Resource Capital
    Frontier Communications
    and on
    and on
    and on

    These are just a few of the profitable American companies, doesn't even include the international juggernauts that pull the major strings.

  • EM, I'm not in agreement with the way things are. I'm not even accepting them as insurmountable. I believe things can be changed, you are correct. It's that 'the way things are' has been so acceptable by society, as a whole, and by too many individuals.

    As for the evolution vs conscious decision (nature vs nurture anyone?)... do elitists (the parasitic wasps that they are) consciously decide to be elitists, or are they born into it (feeding on the flesh of the populous)? Everybody wants to rule the world.

  • So you're defining a company as "green" simply by virtue of them having a green product to offer or a declaration that they're going to do better in eco-regards?

  • I understand what you are getting at, the elite breeding the elite, but that is not always the case. Yes, the elite cast seems to only accept their own, but their choices on how the world should be run are conscious choices, not an evolutionary trait. Yes, the argument could be made that it is the most base instinctual decision...survival (they want to maintain their elite status), but it is still a choice.

    "Everyone wants to rule the world." I think that statement right there is extremely telling. I don't think everyone wants to rule THE world, but THEIR world. The difference between a hapless populace and the ruling class is that very definition. Because of their status, the ruling class has a scope that the average person does not have, and they do their best to make sure that they don't. If the working class ever began to think on global, or universal terms, the ruling class would find themselves in a whole world of trouble...quite literally.

  • I see where you are going here Erin.

    Yes, there are companies that exist that are making strides to reduce carbon footprint, waste, etc. Sadly though, these companies are a drop in the bucket.

    We are talking on a much larger level, a global level, an elite level. There are maybe, and I stress maybe, a handful of companies that actually make the choices for the entire globe. Run every company up a ladder and you will start to find some eery similarities in who makes the financial choices for each company you purchase products from. The Green movement is just their latest marketing scheme.

  • I think that the point is, being that we have found that we are poisoning the planet, and although the unbiased view is that global warming is earth's cycle, we need to do what we know is right. Being that none of us are in a position to overthrow the government, (which I am sure that they just read because of being flagged that I used such terminology on the internet), we need to change our own lives, not because it will help reduce the temperature back to where it was in the 1500's, (please no, I like the temps the way they have been), but because we know that every day we make decisions that hurt the earth. It is good to be green; it helps to protect the wildlife. But why do we have to label it as global warming in order to better ourselves? I get what was said, fear-mongering forces public change. But can't we just change for the sake of our local environment? The government lies to us. That's how it is. We aren't sheep. We know these things. But at the same time, instead of funding big business that is going green, or buying something that is supposedly made by a green company, there are much more fundamental things we can do in order to help the planet. We can recycle, reduce, reuse; things we were taught in elementary school. Of course, as a conspiracy theorist, I don't think that our recycling actually make it to a recycling plant either.

    So, try your best, and don't buy into the propaganda.

  • As always Rex, perfectly presented. Thank You.

  • soo....like why is 1 degree so horrible? wouldn't that be in the marginal category?? and I agree with the whole 'media is the spawn of the devil and shamelessly lies to you for money' sentiment...fear mongering is a very lucrative market....

  • Agreed. The number one best tool to sell a product is to make the consumer afraid of what my happen if they don't own it.

Comment on the Smart Living Network


Site Feedback