global_warming-288x300Is global warming a big hoax?  It’s constantly in the news and President Obama claims to be battling it, but does it even exist?  This morning (Sept. 22, 2009) at the U.N. Climate Change Summit, President Obama said,

“We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations,” he said.

Obama warned that a failure to address the problem could create an “irreversible catastrophe.” Obama said time is “running out” to fix the problem but that, “we can reverse it.” source

According to the President, global warming may be an irreversible catastrophe if we fail to act!  What should we do?  Should we stop driving our cars and shut down our carbon emitting electrical power plants?  Do we need to do something drastic because time is running out?  Should we panic and start demanding that our politicians do something?

Maybe we should be asking some other, calmer questions first.  Questions like– Is the Earth’s temperature  rising or falling?  If the temperature of the Earth is indeed rising or falling, is it man caused or is it natural?  What is the ideal temperature of the Earth?  What evidence are world leaders using to come up with their dire predictions about global warming?  After answering these questions, we may be able to answer the biggest question of all… Is global warming a hoax?

It will take several postings to answer all of these questions, but in this post let’s examine the first one. 

Is the Earth’s temperature rising or falling?

The answer to this question is not as simple as saying, “yes, it is rising” or “yes, it is falling”.  The Earth’s climate is not constant but dynamic.  This means that it naturally changes over time.


As you can see from this chart from, the temperature of the Earth over the last 2000 years has varied quite a bit.  Has the Earth been warming recently?  Yes, but according to the above chart, it was warmer during the medieval period than it is now.  Could the Earth start a cooling trend?  Possibly, it has happened in the past.

Many scientists have observed that in recent years the Earth has been cooling or at least stopped getting warmer.


As you can see in the above chart, recent temperatures have fluctuated like a roller coaster with a peak during 1998 attributed to El Nino.  Since 2002, average temperatures appear to have stabilized and may be starting to fall.  So, is the Earth warming or cooling?  The answer could be both.  Over the last 30 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen above and fallen below the average.  The last reading, in August 2009, has the temperature only .23 degrees Celsius above the Earth’s temperature in 1979 while most of 2008 had below average temperatures.

Joe Bastardi of believes the Earth has been cooling over the last 2 years.

(Thanks to Matt at the Conservative Hideout for bringing this video to my attention in one of his posts)

If we were heading towards, as the President calls it, an “irreversible catastrophe” wouldn’t we expect to see a chart with a steep climb in warming temperatures that would be indisputable?  The climb in temperatures in the last few decades is comparable with previous rises in the Earth’s temperature, and according to Bastardi, the Earth’s temperature may now be cooling. This is a far cry from what is being bantered around at the United Nations Climate Change Summit.

Up next… If the temperature of the Earth is indeed rising or falling, is it caused by humans?

37 Responses to Is Global Warming A Hoax?

  1. patriotic dissenter says:

    The earth has been cooling over the past 9 years, and now that scientists are speaking out about the erroneous belief in global warming so popular among our liberal friends, have you nocticed the Obama administration has changed the terminology from global warming to ‘climate change’?

  2. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Forgotten Liberty. Forgotten Liberty said: Is global warming a hoax? [...]

  3. Charles says:

    I would like to make a suggestion here. My professional area is environmental protection (i.e., one of at least three things I do to make a living). I will be the first to tell you that I know very little about the scientific details of global warming because air is not my bag. I am more of a clean water, contaminated soil, and hazardous waste guy.

    In my early college days, I got most of an undergraduate degree in geology, and that includes studying ancient climates. Liberty is quite right when he says that climatic warming and cooling have shifted around quite a lot in the past, and most of that shifting appears to have been natural when you look at geological time. Moreover, he did pose the question correctly. We know that the Earth is warming. The question before us is whether that warming is natural (as in years past) or whether human activities are causing it now.

    In looking for an answer, I don’t think it is right to go to a hyperpolitical website for information and data on global warming. No Republican websites. No Democratic websites. No conservative websites. No liberal websites. The reason I say that is because each side takes a political position first and has the ability to bend or spin the truth to whatever its predetermined position might be. For example, conservatives are scared to death of a massive rush to fix a global warming problem that really does not exist and fear that this rush will end up destroying the economy of the Earth and ushering in Al Gore as the Anti-Christ. Alternatively, the liberal position is that conservative industrial interests would allow the whole Earth to be destroyed just to make an extra dollar, that the sky really is falling, and that we had better do something fast or we are all doomed. Both sides are exceedingly emotional about this and have tremendous self interests in bending the argument their way.

    I think the best thing to do would be to forget about all of them and go delve objectively into the real science and see what it is telling us about global warming. I work in a town where science is big business. I am a scientist, and a lot of my friends are too. Most of the scientists I know do not go to their laboratories with political agendas—not in my experience. They go there to search for truth in an objective way, which is what they should be doing—be it good news or bad news. I think the things that they are discovering, one way or another, probably provide the most objective and truthful information about global warming, whatever that might be. A good place to begin looking would be in peer-reviewed science periodicals such as “Science,” which are normally on the shelves in science libraries at major universities.

  4. Matt says:

    In principal, I agree with Charles on this one. The truth will set you free, so to speak. The only caveat that I would add is that there is millions in funding for global warming. It is possible for formerly scientific organizations to be biased at this point. Contrary to what the media might say, the scientific community is still divided on this issue. Look at all available sources, and make the best judgment you can.

    Thanks for the link sir, and keep on digging. Climate was changing before we were on Earth, it will continue to change after we are gone. I sometimes think that it is human arrogance that allows us to think that out tiny fraction of CO2 can radically change the Earth.

  5. Harrison says:

    One of the lead GW guys said as much:

    This lie being sold to us about GW is a joke.

  6. I believe that if we staple Al Gore’s mouth shut we could cut emissions in half.

  7. Harrison says:

    Don’t forget Prince Charles, too!

  8. Janet says:

    So, Liberty, you’re able to determine a scientific event better than actual scientists. Wow. Are you a genius?

  9. Liberty says:

    Janet, Why the hostility? If you want to listen to a real scientist just watch the video at the end of this post. I’m not a scientist. If I gave the impression that I was conducting my own uneducated, global warming experiments then I apologize. I am just repeating information that I have collaborated from other scientific sources. The information is out there for anyone to find.

  10. Janet says:

    But you have only chosen to include information that validates your opinion. You have justified your position on issues by only providing people with access to things that make you look like you know what you’re talking about, when you’re not an expert. Actual experts who spend their days studying this are quite clear that climate change is happening.

  11. Liberty says:

    Once again, I am sharing the opinion I have formed after looking at the evidence and I have shared a portion of the evidence that causes me to have the opinion that I do. Do you think all climatologists and meteorologist believe global warming is real? What about Mr. Bastardi in the above video? Do you not consider him an expert because he has a differing view from you?

    I could give you a VERY LONG list of scientist who disagree on the greenhouse gas global warming theory. The same scientist who now say we are heading towards a global warming catastrophe are the same ones who said we were headed towards a new ice age in the early 70′s.

  12. Janet says:

    Okay, give me the long list. If you have this long list, give it to me.

    I don’t trust anything coming from Fox News.

  13. Liberty says:

    The clip was of Joe Bastardi from Yes he was being interviewed on Fox, but he is not a Fox employee. Why do you brush him off? Are you that close minded?
    Since you invalidate Mr. Bastardi for some reason here are some other meteorologists. After you read what they have to say and still want more proof that global warming isn’t a proven fact, I may get some more names for you if I’m not to busy. But I have the feeling that no matter how much I show you it won’t even come close to changing your mind.

    Click on their names for more info

    Matt Rogers

    Dr. William Gray

    John Coleman founder of the Weather Channel

    All you have to do is look at the evidence, or lack thereof, with an open mind. Don’t believe everything you hear on TV or were taught in school.

  14. Janet says:

    And have you looked into those supporting it? I have looked at the evidence of climate change, and I believe it does exist.

    I’m not being closed minded. I am actually paying attention to science. Did it ever occur to you that Fox wasn’t going to put someone on their network that said something that promoted a liberal theory such as climate change.

    How can you look at the Arctic and say that the ice caps melting just is a hoax? How can you believe that animals losing their habitats is some thing that isn’t happening? Look around you. Find people who disagree with you and look into what THEY say, instead of trying to convince people that the minority of people who support your theory are in the right.

    To me, your beliefs appear to be based in finding someone who stated something you felt comfortable with and you just walked away without looking for other information. Why try to change my mind? Why not try to change yours? Are YOU that closed minded?

  15. Janet says:

    John Coleman – is a weatherman, not a meterologist; I can’t find creditials on Matt Rogers; Gray makes personal attacks on others with his claims, yet refuses to have his facts checked

  16. Liberty says:

    In the clip from Fox news, Orielly mentions that he had invited Green Peace to come on the program. They accepted but then backed out at the last minute, so there goes your theory about Fox trying to make it one sided. Why is global warming a conservative liberal thing anyway? Shouldn’t it be about the evidence?

    Your statement about the Arctic ice cap is wrong. It grows some years and shrink others yet you only hear on the news about the years when it shrinks. The Antarctic ice cap, however, has been consistently growing. This is common knowledge… unless you are a follower of Al Gore. Ice caps may melt in one section and grow in another. Yet, people like Al Gore will only show you the area that is melting. Recently in the Antarctic, the areas that are growing have outpaced the areas that are shrinking.
    non Fox news source–,25197,25349683-601,00.html

    You say that Dr Gray refuses to have his facts checked? How can he do that? Feel free to check them out and find out if they are faulty. No one is stopping you.
    You need to stop attacking the source of an argument and actually start debating the issue. Logic and debate 101. Instead of attacking the experts I have put forward, why don’t you actually try to make a counter argument. Then after you make a counter argument, you can lay out the evidence that leads you to believe that global warming is true. Then, in turn, I can try to counter that. Since you have put forth a no Fox news clause, I will put forth a no government run or funded agency clause. I would love to have a debate, but so far everything I have put forward has been met with a “nuh uh” and “I don’t like that guy so I’m not going to listen”. So, do you want to have an honest debate? If not I can’t continue because this is taking to much of my time.

  17. Francis says:


    Much general confusion as to the issue of global warming appears to arise from input of persons that seem to be experts, but are really not experts – from both sides of the isle. Certain laypersons seem to follow these pseudo experts, being jerked from one perspective to the other – ending up with the perspective that best coincides with their political perspective.

    The gentleman’s comments in the above video are quite entertaining, and it certainly appears that he is no expert. A key marker of an expert in disguise is one that employs an extremely small slice of data to make broad sweeping conclusions pertaining to causation or lack thereof—-and carrying these assumptions to all relevant data, ignoring the substantial body of relevant data. Another key marker of an expert in disguise is one that merely observes a correlation or lack thereof to make assumptions as to causality of lack thereof. You will find that “real” experts are often well aware that correlation does not necessitate causation or lack thereof, especially in multivariable systems. The forecasting of environmental temperatures and the determination of underlying causal factors influencing temperature variations represent extreme multivariable problems, since atmospheric temperatures can be influenced by thousands of factors, ranging from solar radiation cycling to volcano ash output to Mongolian dust storm production to black-top road coverage to atmospheric condensation nuclei color and concentration to variations in the earth’s orbital eccentricity, to deep-water ocean circulation changes, and so on. Greenhouse gas production appears to represent merely one of many thousands of relevant variables.

    Keep in mind that our atmosphere may exhibit certain temperature-correcting capabilities, such that when the atmosphere gets extremely hot, the atmosphere attempts to correct itself. For example, hotter surface temperatures alone may increase evaporation from the oceans. Furthermore, certain wide expanses of desert may produce more dust; uneven heating leads to more wind; more dust gets kicked up into the atmosphere. Note that dust storms over Mongolia have been tracked circumnavigating the globe. Increased atmospheric moisture in combination with increased condensation nuclei from the dust (some light colored dust of which can reflect solar radiation back into space) in combination with increased moisture may lead to increased global cloud coverage, more sunlight reflected back into space; more surface shading; more cooling. It appears as no accident that the atmosphere often oscillates between heating and cooling, as this is consistent with the atmosphere adjusting itself for both hot and cold conditions.

    The question before us is more fundamental than whether the earth is actually cooling or warming, as this depends on what interval of time we observe. Instead, the question is whether our production of greenhouse gases is affecting global temperatures, perhaps undesirably multiplying temperature extremes. By creating conditions for extreme heat, we might actually be setting up the next ice age as the atmosphere may over correct for the heating.

    To begin to isolate on the effects of greenhouse gases alone, we begin by constructing artificial atmospheres in the lab, where the atmospheres exhibit gas partial pressures for various atmospheric gases in similar proportion as worldwide atmospheric averages. We then input solar radiation into the artificial atmosphere and measure the atmosphere’s heat-trapping ability while factoring out, i.e., compensating lab-induced effects. We then adjust the ratio of gases to model the addition of CO2 and observe the change in heat-absorbing capacity of the artificial atmosphere. Similar experiments can be done via computer simulation with molecular data input. Generally, we observe that an increase in CO2 proportion correlates with an increase in heat-trapping tendency of the simulated atmosphere.

    Rather than looking at small slices of naked data, like the gentlemen in the video, more informative observations could be drawn, for example, by plotting the temperature data along side global greenhouse gas output and running a correlation algorithm between the different data sequences. Note that greenhouse gas output has not been constant either. In such correlation calculations, we can also account known exogenous effects, such as annual volcano ash output, wildfire ash output, desert atmospheric dust input, and so on. As these exogenous variables are accounted for in the calculations, you’ll see an increase in the correlation between the temperatures and the greenhouse gas production, consistent with laboratory models. The gentleman in the video appears to assume that greenhouse gas production has been linearly increasing and that it would be reasonable to conclude that our activities have no effect on global temperatures. He appears to be making assumptions as to lack of causality based on a selective slice of data in which he fails to observe a substantial increase in temperatures, i.e., he is stabbing in the dark.

    The bottom line: informed commentary regarding multivariable dynamic systems and problems before us
    requires detailed study of potentially thousands of variables, some of which may dynamically interact in ways that we still do not fully understand. Our supercomputers and accompanying AI algorithms are only beginning to model these variables. Nobody can solve this equation now – we only have approximations. We cannot predict the distant future with anywhere near 100% accuracy, but we can provide projections characterized by estimated frequency probabilities based on trends and cycles of different variables in combination.

    However, we can say with virtual certainty that the ratios of atmospheric constituents, e.g., greenhouse gas percentages, represent variables in the global temperature equation. We humans can gamble on increasing the greenhouse gas variable/parameter, and see what happens – but why play roulette with Earth? Let’s not tinker with increasing this greenhouse gas variable folks.

  18. Liberty says:

    If you look at CO2 concentrations in the past, it appears to have no correlation on temperature. There have been periods in the Earth’s history well before the industrial revolution where CO2 levels were much higher than they are now and the Earth thrived. I talked about this in another global warming post —>

    There is still no hard evidence that the extremely small amount (when compared to the entire atmosphere) of CO2 produced by human activity is having any negative impact on the climate.

  19. Francis says:

    A strong correlation exists. You may not see it, because it requires correcting for many other factors. For example, when CO2 levels where much higher, perhaps there were much higher reflective particulate concentrations in the atmosphere, such as due to volcanic activity, etc., — or perhaps this coincided with an ebb in the solar output cycle — or a period of altered orbital eccentricity– all factors which could disguise the contribution of the increased CO2. This is partly why we study the atmospheric effects of CO2 in isolation in the laboratory, as it is often difficult to accurately correct for the confluence of all other factors when observing atmospheric CO2/temperature data.

  20. Francis says:


    Also keep in mind that it’s important whenever looking at data to understand how the data was obtained. For example, it’s known that certain areas of the earth may exhibit cooling while other areas exhibit warming. If we take CO2 measurements from one area and take temperature measurements from another area, this can be problematic. Furthermore, note that extrapolation of ancient data, e.g., via tree ring and soil sampling methods, is notoriously inaccurate. One can take measurements in one area, and drive five miles away and get different numbers. Furthermore, such ancient data often suffers from so-called sampling problems. Really, we want many evenly distributed measurements from around the globe (including offshore sites), where temperature, CO2, and other relevant data are simultaneously sampled at predetermined frequencies. Then we can begin to construct a more accurate picture from which we can make meaningful observations and run better simulations.

    Furthermore, note that a reason we run correlation algorithms, is that it’s often difficult to measure correlations with the naked eye. For example, even the data in the link that you provided will show strong correlation values (substantially greater than zero)for certain sections of the data, e.g., 400-300 and 100-0. Note the simultaneous bumps at 250 and 50.

  21. Liberty says:

    Do you have any hard evidence that the extremely small amount of CO2 emitted by humans is having any negative effects on the climate? Is there any evidence that warrants remaking our entire economy? If the industrialized world begins to “de-industrialize” as a result of climate hysteria, it will have a significant impact on a countless number of people in the third world who rely on the industrialized world for food, clothing, and fuel.

    Before we radically alter our economy and way of life, I think we should have some real world proof that the slight increase in global temperature that we have seen in the last 30 years is in fact caused by humans, is not cyclical (caused by solar activity for example), and will continue unless we do something.

    We have been told for years that there was a consensus among scientists that global warming was real and was caused by humans. Of course, the events of the last several months have shown there is no consensus. Many scientists disagreed with the man caused global warming theory, but were essentially black listed and kept from having their work published in peer reviewed literature by those who have a vested interest in pushing the man caused global warming theory. Many of the top global warming scientist have lost all credibility because they altered, hid, twisted, destroyed and made up data. We constantly receive contradictory reports such as “2009 being the warmest year on record” but then we also find out from top scientists that there has been no warming since the late 1990′s. Then we are also told that industrial activity in the last 100 years is causing the earth to warm, but we also know that the Earth was warmer during the medieval warming period 1000 years before the industrial revolution. We also know that volcanic activity puts so much CO2 into the atmosphere that the tiny amount released by humans is statistically insignificant. We are also told by warmists that polar bears are dying off because their habitat is being destroyed, but when actual wildlife biologists are consulted, they tell us that the polar bear population is growing at a fast rate. Al Gore tells us that Antarctic ice is receding, but the amount of ice in Antarctica has actually grown in the last several years. It’s hard to know who is telling the truth, especially when there is billions of dollars in government grant money involved.

  22. Francis says:


    I have been anticipitating we may experience significant global cooling the next few years, including this year. I also anticipate that people (including some “scientists”) that generally have no understanding of the variables affecting the environment will promplty conclude that our CO2 output has no effect on environmental temperatures and that climate change is a hoax. The latter anticipation comes from knowing the tendency of laypersons to make the leap of assumption from lack of a simple visible correlation to lack of causation – a leap of assumption that should not be made without accounting for changes in all of the relevant variables – and a leap that should not be made without running appropriate correlation computations and environmental simultaitons.

    Shifting to a discussion of economics, keep in mind that innovative change, especially in terms of development of new more efficient mechanisms for energy production can theoretically greatly benefit the economy. There is no growth without change. Currently, there is a tremendous push toward innovation in energy production and related mechanisms, ranging from sonoluminescense-based nuclear fusion to systems and methods for neutralizing and/or reusing nuclear waste to geothermal power to hydrogen production via coal gassification to ocean wave electrical enerators to new types of solar cells to hybrid vehicles to new types of wind turbines to revolutionary batteries…and so on. Much of this push would not be occurring if we were complacent with existing energy production methods. We need to think in terms of taking advantage of the impending change rather than clutching to the past, and only then will we not be left behind in terms of technological development. Note that the automakers in Detroit have suffered, apparently simultaneously clinging to the past and being too slow to push new technologies – only to watch Toyota zoom past, with production of the Prius, etc. Hopefully they can “rechrage” themselves with the Volt, etc.

    Regarding judgements as to whether our effect on the environment has been good or bad thus far – these judgements cannot be made with certainty one way or the other, as this depends upon perspective. From the perspective of the polar bear and their promoters, existing changes in the climate have been problematic. To the microbes that like the conditions of melted polar caps, the environmental change has been fantastic. Note that some in the scientific community believe that we have inadvertently averted a tremendous problematic cooling of the earth that would have otherwise occurred. To these scientists, our impact thus far, in terms of contributing to the heating of the environment, has been beneficial.

    As our awareness of the environment increases, we begin to take on responsibilities that have heretofore been that of nature, e.g., maintaining global temperatures within a certain range; balancing ecosystems; preventing the extinction of certain species, and so on. We now have a responsibility to pay attention to the atmosphere, as changes in the atmosphere can greatly affect us – independent of whether the brunt of these changes are caused by natural phenomena or otherwise.

    The notion that because the amount of CO2 input into the environment is “tiny” our contribution to the global temperature equation is “tiny” simply does not fly. Note that “tiny” changes in average temperatures over time can create huge effects. Furthermore, sometimes that with the largest effect comes from the tiniest of things, e.g., a tiny input to a given system can yield a huge output effect– where this effect is substantially dependent upon the phenomena governing the system to which the input is provided. For example, a tiny dose of 1/10,000 of a gram of a particular botulinum toxin can purportedly kill a human – the effect of the tiny amount of toxin is dependent upon its interaction with the body’s systems. A tiny neutron splitting a tiny nucleus can trigger an atom bomb explosion. Similarly, we cannot judge the effects of a “tiny” amount of CO2 as being “tiny” without taking into account how the CO2 interacts with the atmospheric system – and without keeping in mind that even if the input is tiny and the output is also tiny — sometimes a small output can have a huge impact on another system – e.g., a small “output” temperature fluctuation could have a huge impact on certain affected systems.

    Furthermore, I would venture to say that our pollutant input to the environment is anything but tiny – just look at some of the satellite photos over India illustrating large swaths of smog – anytime you see this much smog, you know that a large portion of that is CO2 – CO2 production it is unquestionably a major constituent of fossil-fuel combustion processes. When you fill up your car, where do you think that gasoline has gone when your tank is empty? It has gone right into the atmosphere, but in a different form of course – substantially CO2 and perhaps nitrogen, with a lesser amount of nitric oxide, carbon monoxide, aldehydes, other volatile organic compounds, and so on (–for example, the combustion of methane:
    CH4 + 2O2 ? CO2 + 2H2O + energy). The amount of this matter that is actually converted into energy via E=mc2 is so small that it is substantially zero — the energy is from the release of chemical energy inherent in the chemical bonds. In other words, if you measured the weight of your fuel and then measured the weight of the gaseous byproducts, the weight would be substantially the same. Now multiply that among all of the cars, power plants, and so on, around the world and you’ll get a feel for how “tiny” this is – keeping in mind that a “tiny” dust cloud in Mongolia can circumnavigate the globe and change the color of sunsets world wide.


  23. Francis says:

    …to visualize it another way, imagine if all of the exhaust output from our vehicles and power plants was black or opaque … rather than the majority of it being transparent CO2 and N2. Frankly, we would be living in the dark — and it would be getting darker everyday.


  24. Liberty says:

    Do you have any proof that CO2 produced from humans is having any real world impact on climate? Do you have any numbers as to how much CO2 in the atmosphere is actually attributable to humans? Are there other factors that are more likely to have a greater influence on world temperatures than CO2 like water vapor or sun spot activity? According to, the amount of the greenhouse effect that can be attributable to humans is about .28% of the total effect. source- Is this .28% of the total greenhouse effect more influential than sun spots on climate?

    You are also mistaken on your point about Detroit and Toyota “zooming” past them with the Prius. Toyota is not making any real money on the Prius. The amount of profit made from one Prius is only about 7% to 12% of what Toyota makes on the sale of one Tundra pickup truck. Toyota has to sell about 10 Prius to make the same amount of profit as selling one Tundra. The real reason for Detroit’s woes is that the average union employee at a Detroit factory is paid about $70 dollars an hour when you take into account hourly wage, health benefits, retirement plan, etc. Toyota factories here in the states pay their employees about $40 an hour when all benefits are taken into consideration. This means that our domestic car companies have almost double the labor costs of the Japanese companies. The main reason for this is the constant demands of the unions. How can you compete when your labor costs are nearly double that of your competitor? It has nothing to do with the Prius or Chevy’s new Volt. The Volt will be too expensive for most Americans for years to come and will have no impact on the profitability of GM until it can be made cheaper.

  25. Dr. Castle says:

    I won’t delve much into this topic because from what I have seen the vast majority of people have a preformed opinion that will generally not change regardless of what evidence is presented.

    It seems to be a lot like a political stand point on which party to vote for, if god exists, what religion is right, and if abortion/lethal injection is moral or not.

    So here is my 2 cents for you, even though you might discard it and though claim to look into it, not give a care about ANY journal articles supporting global warming or climate change.

    Based on what I have read and been exposed to (mind you I am a medical doctor not a climate expert, though my undergrad as you would imagine was in the sciences and I do keep up with this along with other “hot topic” issues), I would say that global warming is more likely to be a concern than not (and since I am not a gambling man I will always err on the side of caution or most likelihood which in this case is the same side). Unlike you and a lot of others however, I will easily switch sides if I see that what the “current” science finds is different.

    The beauty of real science is not in answering every question or in matching what your preconceptions of what is right/wrong. Rather it is that unlike religion or people’s misconceptions, science is as close as we can get to an objective view on things that match our latest and best current knowledge. Are scientists people who will look for their general well-being in seeking research grants and realizing that publishing something that contradicts the majority of existing evidence may jepardize their credibility? Yes. But at the same time, you would be surprised just how few grants are based on the conclusion of the study or how hard the majority of scientists/researches try to stay objective and honest to the findings.

    We both can agree “currently” the majority of researchers/scientists believe in this “global climate change/warming” and that control of especially our large CO2 emissions is important. Can this change in the years to come? Of course, but it would be self-serving and dishonest to simply ignore what the majority of current science believes because you don’t personally like it.

    I can already hear the argument of, “but the researchers don’t believe in it…”. This is wrong too..we both know if a poll among all climate researchers was to be conducted where the majority would fall. Can you question the findings? Of course, thats what science is! But science is also accepting what is the current hypothesis as being probably true “for now” while we poke into the theories and see what is what, and how much water they hold.

    What about Al Gore you ask? I would tell you what about him? He is just another person who is spewing what he believes as you or I are. I have always seen things as this. NO ONE can trully represent a group. The only real representative for each individual scientist, is each individual scientist him or herself. So if Al Gore turns out to be an uninformed, mmenipulating, and dishonest person what does that say about those that believe in global warming? It says nothing…It would be like equating the pedaphilic actions of some of the catholic clergy with all catholics.

    Here is my advice to you (probably will be ignored but hopefully you at least consider it). Try to put your misconceptions of whether or not our CO2 emissions matter to one side, and open a few journal articles about the matter, and question their findings critically (e.g. how was the data obtained? Does it make sense? Is their conclusion logical? If I did this experiment (yes you!) what would you have also added?) This will take a lot of time but it will set you up rwell for any issue. Then after reading these articles (which I know 99% of which will probably support climate change), find a few “real” journal articles that contradict climate change and ask the same questions (yes these exist believe it or not). Then after that come up with your own “current” conclusion. If you trully want a “scientific approach” to question repeat this process every few months or every-now-and-then to see what current science really says. It will also help you support your arguments with better evidence than FOX news (btw I believe ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN are just as one sided as FOX so its not a pick on them specifically).

  26. Bill Gates says:

    I really think Janet ought to be a bit more polite and open-minded. It’s not right to be so brash in a debate.

  27. redline says:

    have you nocticed the Obama administration has changed the terminology from global warming to ‘climate change’?
    that’s not true at all. it happened under george w’s administration.
    i guess facts are unimportant though.

  28. Sean says:

    Facts like the how Himalayan glaciers are actually growing instead of retreating? Or how climate scientists have been manipulating the evidence to fit their hypothesis of man caused global warming? Yeah, facts like these are unimportant to people who want to push a political agenda and use the guise of science to do it.

  29. Nick says:

    I submit to you another graph of which I got from the NASA website. which shows directly conflicting information to the UAH graph.

    This is merely a reminder that none of us have the expertise to understand this presented information. Finding, reading, and interpreting enough academic papers to attempt to make a judgment on this situation is impossible for anyone outside the field. In the end you have to believe someone. Blindly interpreting these graphs with no reference to how the data was collected and analyzed is pointless.

  30. Liberty says:

    Nick, that graph is almost identical to the UAH graph I have in this post. The Nasa graph is showing a longer time period so the average baseline temperature is not quite the same. But other than that they are very similar. They both show about a .4 to .6 degree increase in global temperatures from the late 1970′s to about 2005. How does this contradict the graph in this post? How is the Nasa graph a reminder that “none of us have the expertise to understand this presented information”?

  31. Nick says:

    To me the UAH graph shows that the variance in the temperature is larger than any trend warming or cooling. While the NASA graph shows the opposite of an upward trend greater than any variance even during the same time period of 1980 onward. How was each data set collected? What statistical methods were used to calculate the global average? Which graph more accurately shows the temperature of the Earth and would predict the climate in the future?

  32. Liberty says:

    The two graphs aren’t identical but they are similar. They both show a spike during the El Nino phenomenon in the late 90′s and they both show about a .4 (mine) to .6 (yours) degree above average temperature around 2005. Where they are dissimilar is the time period they are showing and data collection. The graph I provided starts in 1979, yours starts in 1880. The graph I provided is based off of satellite readings of the lower atmosphere. I’m not sure what the temperatures in the graph you provided are from, but it’s safe to say they are not satellite based because of an 1880 start date. It is most likely from weather observation posts around the world, which is one of the least accurate ways of determining average temperature. This means the two graphs aren’t directly comparable because very different methods was used to obtain the data. However, even with differing methods of data collection, they still show somewhat similar results. To me, what is more telling about the global warming debate is the first graph in this post that shows average temperatures for the last 2000 years. We know the Earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles in the past and we also know that carbon levels in the air have been much greater in the past than they are now. So we need to examine ALL the evidence closely before we decide that man is causing the current warming cycle or if we are still even in a warming cycle. Don’t just believe what you hear on TV or read from some scientist who relies on government grant money. Investigate for yourself.

  33. CptWayne says:

    Hi Folks, climate change has way too many variables to pin it on little ol’ CO2. It may be that increased equatorial water vapor, blown into the Arctic, actually increases snow so that the albedo changes then tilt in favor of an ice age.The greatest “albeders” are snow, cumulus stratus clouds, and alto stratus cirrus clouds. All the other ones are much lower. So, clouds are much more important to consider than CO2, for example.

  34. [...] may be a bit biased in their views but all the graphs are 100 percent accurate. Graphs/Charts Is Global Warming A Hoax? Power and Control: Biggest Con In History and again with the cows Are cows the cause of global [...]

  35. Ian says:

    It is truly funny how fat rich Americans are only worried if they will have to walk for a change. You even make it political, you are insane.

  36. Chris says:

    Duh, climate is changing. Human’s are funny. they take a small segment of their isolated time on earth and scream the sky is falling, things can’t change, we forbid it.

    We can’t accurately predict the weather a month from now, let alone 50 years from now. Yes, climate is changing – it always does.

    Should we be polluting with impunity? Nope. But we’re not going to reverse, even if what some say is true, what took 60 years to create overnight. We need to learn to adapt while changing our parasitic behaviours which will ultimately destroy the planet with or without an increase in CO2.

Random Pages By Best Accountants Services