Back in the 1980's, when Ronald Reagan became President, I was a Physics major and strongly in favor of Nuclear Power. Back then, Carl Sagan was the most prominent Scientist in the world and he and the consensus warned the world that Global Cooling was happening. This was featured in Newsweek magazine and every mainstream media outlet constantly discussed the "Global Cooling Crisis".
This was blamed on the just discovered "Ozone Hole" in the Antarctic that satellites had just begun studying. No one knew for sure how long it had been there, but surely, this "hole" was caused by man according to these so-called Scientists. They blamed CFC's, a chemical use in aerosol cans. The solution was to have them banned. No one could explain why CFC's would migrate from the industrial Northern Hemisphere to the Antarctic, but those were mere details. Something had to be done immediately. The world was in panic mode. Thousands of workers (all Americans) were laid off but it was justified because it would save the earth according to the Global Cooling people. Even Nuclear Power plant construction was stopped because it, too, caused Global Cooling.
I argued at the time that man could not possibly effect the global temperature. Having studied Physics and Astronomy as well as Biology, I knew that natural phenomenon controlled the world's temperature. But how could I argue with a Scientist with a PhD in Physics like Carl Sagan?
Incredibly, during the Clinton administration, a Democrat, the global cooling crisis ended. It was not discussed in the mainstream media or from any Science group again.
After the 2000 Presidential election, the loser, Al Gore, created a movie which claimed that now "Global Warming" was happening. How coincidental that this was discovered under a new Republican President. Al Gore has never formally studied Science and has all his information just from talking to Scientists, mainly Michael Mann and Scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in University of East Anglia, England. They pointed out evidence from Tree Ring data and from melting ice in the Arctic Ocean. It amazes me that this school does not even have a Physics department. But somehow they are considered experts in Climatology.
They never explained how we went from Global Cooling to Global Warming. They can't. They never explained how they came to these conclusions at all. It was too difficult for mere mortals to understand this. When each and every prediction made by the Global Warming people turned out wrong, they would not't change their theory, they would just make up a new story. Now its not even Global Warming, but "Climate Change". Sure the Arctic ice was melting, but the Antarctic ice was increasing more than the Arctic ice was decreasing. This was not predicted. So they credited the previously mentioned "Ozone Hole" for saving the Antarctic ! So we should have kept CFC's and not laid off all those workers according to this new story.
Now Obama and others are saying that we need nuclear power to replace oil. Wait, I said that 30 years ago, but now their story has changed. Now Nuclear Power is good, before it was bad. It would have been better had Government just stayed out of it.
It was recently discovered that the CRU data was all fictitious. The data used for it was intentionally destroyed. The Tree Ring data was fudged. They claimed that Tree Rings were not a good indicator of weather after 1960, yet mysteriously they were good before 1960. They reprogrammed (tricked) the computer to "hide the decline". But then the Global Warming people said that it did not't matter because the consensus was already there and everyone agreed. But the consensus was all based on this data. I challenge anyone to go into NASA's ground temperature readings and see for themselves that temperatures in the US have remained flat for the past 100 years all over the country. So CRU data and NASA data both show that there is no global warming, cooling or anything else for that matter.
And even if the world was cooling or heating, how does that prove man is the cause? The CO2 data that we hear so much about comes from a single measurement source on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. And how appropriate that the Global Warming Cult uses this "temple" as a surrogate God to give them all their knowledge. Why haven't they opened up a second or third observation post to measure CO2 in an area not so inclined to have the gas? Are these machines that expensive? What are they doing with all those billions of dollars in research money?
Even if man was the cause, why would it be "good" or "bad"? The number of Polar Bears has tripled in the past 100 years. So if Global Warming is happening, it must be good for the Polar Bears. But species adapt as per the rules of Science, not as per the whims of man anyway.
Even if there is global warming, and even if man was the cause, and even if it was truly a bad thing (and I would disagree with each of those conclusions independently), should the US economy be shut down and allow India and China to pollute more than we would? It does not make any sense to shut down a cleaner US plant and allow a dirtier Chinese plant to operate.
The fact is that the motivation behind Global Warming has nothing to do with helping out Polar Bears or making the world a better place for lovers. The purpose is simply to hurt or destroy the American economy. This is about transferring trillions of dollars of American money to other countries as a pay off. That is what the Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen and Cap and Trade are all about. We fell for Global Cooling, lost jobs and got hurt before. Let's not let it happen again.
Comments
Hear! Hear!
What a article!
You can't go public with all this common sense, people will think your CRAZY!!!!
Are you perhaps a "jack of all trades": physics, astronomy and biology? Physics and astronomy are highly reductionist whereas climate science is holistic. Reductionist biology, when placed in context, is holistic.
If the known climate data is evaluated impassionately, without prejudice, you cannot fail to notice trends that correlate strongly with human activity.
In some instances your statements are incorrect, for example: 1. controlling CFC's made a startling impact on ozone depletion 2. because they require pack ice to hunt from, polar bears are becoming endangered. When the distance between the ice floes is too great to swim across the bears drown.
I understand that fear can be a powerful demotivator to action but what we need now is support for the alternative technologies that will underpin the industry of the future.
You are right that emerging economies have high levels of pollution however this cannot be addressed through isolationism or insular bullying.
As with every other profession there are good and bad proponents. Did you pay attention during lectures? Get good grades? If so, it's time to re-acquaint yourself with fact checking.
This article is nonsense!
As an individual who is studying glaciology I can tell you that not only are you factually wrong about your assertion pertaining to the ice in the arctic compared to antarctica, but you are WAY wrong. To the point that it is almost idiotic that I have to correct you. Land Ice, Ice caps, and Ice Sheets in both the Arctic and Antarctic are melting significantly *Chen et al. 2009 even confirmed that East Antarctica is melting/calving, not to mention that the WAIS (you better know what this is) has been well documented to be losing enormous amounts of ice contributing to SLR*. Sea ice in the arctic has reduced exponentially however in antarctica sea ice has increased, this is due to increasing westerlies in the region *see SCAR report*. Sea ice does not contribute to SLR, and I believe the author is being disingenuous by not mentioning this. Land ice, glacier and ice sheets however do contribute to SLR significantly see cazenave et al. 2009. Your degree does not make you a glaciologist.
You are very wrong on your assertions pertaining to ice in the arctic and antarctica. And as a student in the field of glaciology I believe that you are being disingenuous and yourself manipulating results. Sea ice is increasing in Antarctica due to increased westerlies *see scar report* and yes sea ice in the arctic is being lost exponentially. However LAND ICE, GLACIERS and ICE SHEETS are all melting and contributing significantly to sea level rise. Chen et al. 2009 even recently confirmed that the east antarctic ice sheet is even losing ice significantly, this coupled with the significant melt of the GIS and WAIS have resulted in major contributions to sea level rise from both regions *cazenave et al. 2009*. Perhaps you should check your facts from time to time. Or realize that physics and astronomy does not give you qualifications for to make pronouncements as if you are an expert on glaciology. Apparently omitting facts was also one of your majors.
Reply to the Glaciology Student:
Your glaciology degree obviously does not make you a Scientist. Did you ever think about studying for a REAL degree like Physics or Chemistry? You know as much Science as Al Gore. Here are the inconvenient facts: "Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap."
Maybe you should study harder and not believe everything your teachers tell you. Ask them what ever happened to “global cooling". Why did CRU violate FOIA, destroy data and play tricks to “hide the decline” if there is nothing to hide? Why does NASA’s data contradict the so-called “consensus”?
As far as our Polar Bear friends, they seem to love the global warming. Their numbers increased 5-fold since the 1950's.
Nice article.
Now prove what you say is true.
Opinions are worth nothing.
You make too much of the "global cooling" myth. "Only several articles were written, and these in popular publications, with sensationalistic headlines but much tamer and even-handed texts. At the time, no peer reviewed climatological journals predicted a 'new ice age.'" It was not a scientific consensus, by any means, so your comparison with the climate change movement is bogus. And Sagan only raised the POSSIBILITY of cooling, in the same breath as a potential Nuclear Winter. "Carl Sagan also once noted that massive burning of forests around the globe MIGHT cause cooling. And there was SPECULATION that the massive amount of dust, smoke, explosive residue, and diesel exhaust during WWII may have cooled the globe." See /jumpersbloghouse.blogspot.com
You are stretching facts to make a case that doesn't exist.
Thank you for your comments. Please subscribe to my articles and I will address your questions and issues raised in future articles.
Here's the proof
sbvor.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-change-science-overview.html
Great article. I may not be a scientist, but have enough common sense to ask basic questions. Your story about the flip-flop of cooling-warming, nuclear yes/no, is indicative that we (all humans) have a serious problem. What is the real science behind the costly policies that are being push to us? I just finished reading a comprehensive summary of the famous emails. I urge everyone that wants to opine about this matter to take the time and digest this weird story. It reminded me a lot of the Enron mess... And yet, I don't see the same level of outrage. Why?
CFC Theory Casts Doubt On CO2 Warming
Thursday, 24 December 2009 08:00 Dr. David Whitehouse .Research accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, Physics Reports, casts doubt on the conventional explanation that changing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are responsible for global climate change through the Greenhouse Effect.
Qing-Bin Lu is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo who has a history of studying the chemistry of Ozone depletion in the stratosphere. His latest work – a substantial 57 page report – provides new, and to some controversial, insights into the depletion of Ozone in the stratosphere. Lu believes Cosmic Rays help CFC’s deplete atmospheric Ozone.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!