|
by B. Cooper
March 2008
from
IntelligentEssays Website
Introduction
Several hypotheses have emerged to explain the global warming
phenomenon.
Among these theories, Anthropogenic
Global Warming (AGW) has emerged as the leading theory,
which deduces that the Earth is warming due to human activity and
that as a result humans will eventually destroy the planet. The AGW
theory has permeated nearly every facet of modern society.
Over the past few decades, scientists,
politicians, marketers, and Earth lovers alike, for various reasons,
have employed propaganda techniques to promote the Anthropogenic
Global Warming theory; in the process, they proactively sought to
curtail the exposure of the truth in order to profit from people’s
apprehension of global warming.
Fears of the Earth’s rising temperature
are based on global temperature averages over the past 100 years,
with special interest placed on the past decade.
During the mid 1800’s, the average
surface temperature varied but, was close to -0.4 °C. Contrasting the
older temperatures with today’s average of 0.4°C, a difference of
nearly 0.8° C, has alarmed many and caused others to investigate the
reasons for the perceived increase in temperature.
Human activity has borne the bulk of the blame for the increased
temperatures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
established by
the United Nations to investigate the impact human
activity has on the global climate, while recognizing other factors
that influence the climate, attributes the majority of global
warming to human activity.1
Human activity includes land clearing,
industrial emissions and transportation emissions, which increase
greenhouse gasses and aerosols. The IPCC, the chief promoter of AGW,
identified that the primary cause of increased temperatures
worldwide is human-related carbon dioxide emissions from fossil
burning fuels.
The IPCC recently published dire worldwide predictions based on
their global warming calculations.
While supporters of the AGW
Theory often quote other sources, the IPCC is generally recognized
as the most authoritative body on the subject. Their report
concludes that the increasing global temperatures will cause ocean
levels to rise and the water to become more acidic; the confident
estimates predict that precipitation, wind, and ice will change as
well- although there is no consensus on their magnitude.2
The IPCC
deftly presents all of the calculations, though nearly each one
contains a caveat explaining that the models employed are lacking
significant data or the phenomenon is too complex to accurately
model.
Propaganda
Techniques
Scholars have written volumes explaining the techniques and
methodology of propagandists for hundreds of years. To propagandize,
one need only read a how-to manual to learn the concepts of an
effectively run propaganda campaign.
Propaganda techniques include:
-
appealing to fear
-
appealing to authority
-
name-calling
-
transference
-
bandwagoning
-
obtaining disapproval
-
over
simplification
-
utilizing virtue words
-
employing faulty logic
-
and
more...
AGW proponents utilize all of these methods to further their
goals, which will be discussed later.
Appealing to fear is perhaps the strongest technique used by
propagandists. Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Goebbels exploited and
motivated the German population by striking fear into them.
Likewise, propagandists have attempted to use the fear factor to get
the media’s attention and gain front-page real estate.
Headlines
such as “Scientists fear global warming higher than expected” are
designed to make the audience cringe with fear when they read that
earth's average temperature could rise by 7.8°C by 2300 with polar
ice caps melting and seas rising by seven meters.3 Nearly every
report concerning global warming is laced with calamitous
consequences if something is not done soon.
This type of propaganda
is effective in catching readers’ attention and motivating them to
some action.
In the early stages of AGW propaganda, global warming fears
dominated public consciousness. Later, beginning in 1998, the Earth
began to cool while atmospheric CARBON DIOXIDE continued to rise in
complete contradiction to the theory. As a result, the phraseology
of AGW alarmists became "climate change" so that any variation in
the Earth’s climate could then be attributed to human activities.4
The problems with the scare tactic is that eventually people become
immune to the warnings, prompting the AGW propaganda engine to
produce more extreme warnings.
John Ritch, director general of the
World Nuclear Association, provided an excellent example of upping
the fear factor; in June 2007,
"Greenhouse gas emissions, if
continued at the present massive scale, will yield consequences that
are - quite literally - apocalyptic. ... If these predictions hold
true, the combined effect would be the death of not just millions
but of billions of people, and the destruction of much of
civilization on all continents." 5
At some point, propagandists will
be forced to rely on other tools of propaganda, as appealing to fear
will eventually lose effectiveness.
AGW propagandists do not rely solely on fear to influence the masses
however; an appeal to authority is a common technique. By invoking
the infallible name of science, advocates can point to others who
have advanced degrees and use scientific jargon to impress and
beguile the masses.
Because the average citizen does not have the
time or resources to conduct her own study of the warming
phenomenon, she is forced to rely on the opinions of those
scientific authorities. Who on their own can readily cite hard
numbers and create computer models to evaluate and project the
future? Appealing to authority alleviates the average citizen of
this academic burden.
Authoritative sources include dictionaries, which have become a tool
of the propagandist.
American Heritage Science Dictionary gives the
following definition for global warming:
An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere,
especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the
global climate. The Earth has experienced numerous episodes of
global warming through its history, and currently appears to be
undergoing such warming. The present warming is generally attributed
to an increase in the greenhouse effect, brought about by increased
levels of greenhouse gases, largely due to the effects of human
industry and agriculture.
Expected long-term effects of current
global warming are rising sea levels, flooding, melting of polar ice
caps and glaciers, fluctuations in temperature and precipitation,
more frequent and stronger El Niño and La Niña, drought, heat
waves, and forest fires.6
Authoritative sources employ several other types of propaganda
techniques, many of which overlap. The above appeal to authority
includes the tactic of fear and faulty logic- using seemingly
contradicting predictions concurrently; how can a worldwide drought
simultaneously be accompanied by flooding and melting of land-locked
glaciers?
Contradictory statements by some authoritative sources
seek to lend credibility to the AGW argument by oversimplifying the
theory, yet making it confusing enough for the average citizen to
leave in the hands of “experts”.
Name-calling is usually reserved for politically minded individuals
and those audiences predisposed to agree with the one presenting the
message. Words such as “right wing” or “ultra conservative” contain
such a built-in prejudice, that when an author utilizes them to
describe an opponent of AGW, the same prejudices are transferred to
that individual, regardless of the opponent’s political leanings.
Name-calling will often be invoked attacking the person, rather than
the idea being presented.
Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate
researcher became frustrated during a conference on Global Warming
when challenged by Colorado State University's William Gray, one of
the nation's preeminent hurricane forecasters and said that Dr. Gray
is not a credible scientist,
“Not any more. He was at one time, but
he's not any more".7
Name-calling attempts to discredit individuals
and the ideas they represent, is unprofessional, and unfortunately,
individuals on both sides of the AGW theory engage in it.
Additionally, name-calling is often applied to naturally occurring
molecules in nature; carbon dioxide is regularly labeled as a
pollutant, something that is essential for plant life and,
subsequently, all life. Labeling those who disagree with AGW as less
than educated or ignorant stifles scientific thought and academic
deliberation, favoring the pro-AGW theorists.
Further, attempting to
categorize carbon dioxide as a pollutant wrongly demonizes nearly
every oxygen breathing carbon dioxide emitting organism, but
primarily places the blame on humans, who release CARBON DIOXIDE in
the air when burning fossil fuels. Additionally, placing
carbon-dioxide in the category of pollutant emphasizes, as many AGW
supporters do, that it is a major green house gas, which it is not.
Water vapor, the primary greenhouse gas, may soon be targeted and
placed on the list of pollutants.
Proponents of AGW engage in a propaganda technique known as
“transfer.” Transfer occurs when the positive or negative traits of
one thing or person are associated with that of another. For
example, when the supporter of AGW addresses a television audience,
he wears a white lab coat, whether or not he works in a lab, because
people associate white lab coats with scientists and truth
untainted.
Conversely, when interviewing a skeptic of AGW, the deft
AGW reporter will find a suitable candidate among a Texas oil town
or a steel worker in Detroit. In each case, the viewer will
associate a negative or positive image of the person speaking with
what he or she is presenting.
A vivid illustration of transfer is the attack by Ben Stewart of
Greenpeace on the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the primary
think tank that opposes the AGW theory.
Stewart says,
"The AEI is
more than just a think tank, it functions as the
Bush
administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra”.8
By equating the AEI to
the Mafia, Ben Stewart attempts to transfer the negative feelings
and images of the terrorist/criminal organization to that of the AEI
and President Bush, simultaneously, he engages in name-calling to
discredit the AEI.
Mr. Stewart does not attack the concepts
presented by AEI or any of the rational behind their objections to
AGW, he attacks those funding the organization and appeals to
outside organizations predisposed to bias.
Bandwagoning and polarization go hand in hand. The propagandist will
attempt to simplify the issue, presenting only two extreme options:
you can either pollute, drive big SUV’s, burn coal and waste energy
or you can join the eco-friendly, caring people who want to preserve
the Earth for future generations, which is what every other
responsible person is doing.
These techniques are highly effective
because while one may not completely agree with what is presented,
it is easier to go along with what everyone else is doing - thousands
of scientists and millions of other people can’t be wrong.
Bandwagoning is invoked regularly when discussing the Kyoto
Protocol. Propagandists will posture that every other nation has
agreed to the Protocol except for the United States. The manipulator
will then polarize the argument, presenting America as the reckless
polluting capitalist giant, which has excluded itself from the
responsible nations of the world. Nevertheless, even those
“responsible” nations recognize the implications of the Kyoto
Protocol.
Margot Wallstrom, the European Union's commissioner for
the environment and global warming said,
“[the Kyoto Protocol] is
not a simple environmental issue where you can say it is an issue
where scientists are not unanimous. This is about international
relations; this is about economy, about trying to create a level
playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to
understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious."
9
The EU
knows that if the US agreed to the protocol, it would disadvantage
the US economically. The technique of bandwagoning and polarizing
the issue can only be effective among those less informed masses;
those who fully understand the subject comprehend the myriad issues
and consequences of such actions.
Propagandists capitalize on the public’s disapproval of big industry
and the distrust of oil companies. Several websites posit that oil
companies fund the bulk of the research disputing AGW through its
primary opponent, AEI.10
Whether this is true or not, it implies
that: because oil companies and big industry cannot be trusted,
neither can the results of their research. Despite the fact that AEI
scholars and fellows are required to disclose in their published
work any affiliations they may have with organizations with a direct
interest in the subject of that work, detractors continually cast
doubt on the work of their scientists and scholars.11
In fact, a
popular website declares the AEI as,
“an extremely influential,
pro-business right-wing think tank… [which] promotes the
advancement of free enterprise capitalism, and succeeds in placing
its people in influential governmental positions. It is the center
base for many neo-conservatives.” 12
Direct attacks on this organization are representative of a
propagandistic technique to obtain disapproval. In other words, if
group X (which the audience believes is inherently bad) likes or
approves of something, then that something must be wrong or bad.
Over-simplification of the issue is a pitfall in which nearly every
media outlet falls. The issues and contributing factors surrounding
global warming are so numerous that even the scientists who created
the models for the IPCC admit that there is simply not enough
computer power to account for all the variables affecting the global
warming phenomenon.13
To address even the major factors in a
scientific setting requires multiple volumes and numerous charts and
data; presenting the findings to the average citizen, in terms he
can understand, demands simplification. The propagandist has
succeeded in convincing the typical American that consuming energy
and driving cars, cause global warming; the result of which is that
the Earth is getting hotter and will eventually result in the
annihilation of humanity.
Because the argument for AGW has been oversimplified, the ordinary
citizen believes that she understands the concept and the factors
related to it. Buzz words such as deforestation, O-zone, rising
ocean levels, shrinking ice caps, pollution, over population and
death become intermingled and blurred; the simpler the idea, the
easier it is to remember.
Never mind the complex concepts of global
forcing, the fact that Antarctica is actually getting colder or that
the Earth is continuously either warming or cooling- and has been
for millennia, or that the oceans can rise and shrink
simultaneously; the average person cannot and will not devote the
time and energy required to pursue an advanced degree or dedicate
the time required to understand the complex issues surrounding the AGW theory.
Simplifying the message and presenting the idea in terms
that most can understand help to further the AGW propagandist’s
agenda.
Expert and novice propagandists have long wielded virtue words and
slogans. Virtue words impart value to the idea to which they are
associated. For example, when considering the abortion slogans,
“pro-choice” sounds so much more positive and human rights oriented
than “anti-life” which carries a negative connotation.
Likewise, AGW
propagandists have chosen slogans that are endearing and hard to
argue against.
Phrases such as “Save Our Earth” imply the Earth is
in need of saving and, that we can and should do something to save
it. Who could argue the opposite phrase “destroy our planet”?
This
slogan draws on the bandwagon technique, implying that the
individual needs to join others in saving “our” planet.
Other virtue words commonly used by proponents for AGW include
science, Mother Earth, health, and civilization. Such words evoke
emotion and their usage prompts actions to protect and defend the
ideas to which they are attached. Pro AGW articles that claim
science predicts global warming will end civilization as we know it,
endanger our health and destroy Mother Earth are designed to stir up
feelings of fear, one of the previously discussed propaganda
techniques.14
There is literally no end to the list of virtue words;
a propagandist can harness any word that has an intense or personal
meaning to someone to elicit a thought or response from his
audience.
AGW supporters regularly incorporate faulty logic into arguments
when attempting to explain something for which there are not yet
answers or reasonable explanations. Just because B chronologically
follows A, it does not mean that A causes B. The AGW adherent will
claim that the Earth’s temperature is rising and so is the carbon
dioxide levels from humans, illogically concluding that this means
human carbon dioxide emissions are causing the temperature to raise.
Another form of faulty logic is an accident resulting from over
simplification. While exploring alternative fuels, several
scientists have discovered that palm oil burns cleaner than
petroleum. AGW supporters jumped on this idea and championed the
research to modify vehicle engines that will burn palm oil, a
readily renewable resource.
Little did they know the issue was more
complicated than simply burning a new fuel; harvesting palm oil is a
major cause of rain forest deforestation and is associated with the
widespread use of chemicals, which damage health and pollute the
environment.15 While honest mistakes are sometimes made, good
intentions are not enough to justify illogical actions.
An AGW defender may argue from ignorance; claiming that an idea is
accurate simply because it has not been proven false. The AGW
propagandist might suppose,
“I don’t know what this means, but it
must be bad because the unknown is frightening.”
Further, circular
reasoning is employed when campaigning for decreased emissions of
pollutants. Example: An AGW champion posits that all pollutants that
increase green house gases must be regulated.
When asked what
pollutants she is concerned about, she responds,
“the ones that
cause increased green house gases.”
There are many other types of
faulty logic, all of which have been employed in the argument for AGW.
The Reasons
for AGW Propaganda
The propaganda techniques discussed are tactical methods to convince
the world population that humans are the primary cause of global
warming. The strategic goal, however, is to incorporate as many of
these methods into the daily life of the average citizen, so that he
accepts the theory as fact.
From new articles, t-shirts, laundry
detergent, political speeches, movies, and appliances to car
insurance commercials, AGW has permeated modern society to the point
where there is no escape. A discussion of the benefits that AGW
supporters receive will offer explanations why the AGW theory has
received overwhelming backing.
Anthropologic Global Warming theory is a marketers dream. It has
paved the way for the development of new inventions, provided
funding for scientists, and created a demand for eco-friendly
products, including everything from hairspray to solar panels. The
effectiveness of AGW propaganda can be measured by the demand for
environmentally friendly products in the past two decades. Various
companies have sought the endorsement of the EPA to tout their
products to the recently converted AGW believers.
A Google search for “eco-friendly” results in 12,000,000 hits; while
a search for “eco” alone yields over 81 million.16
Products offered
include vacationing, health food, books, beauty products, air
filters, soap, home products, pest control, televisions, insurance
and more. Nearly every type of company, hawking every type of good
or service has capitalized on eco-friendly marketing.
AGW propaganda
propels multi-billion dollar industries to exploit the fears that
global warming proponents have sown into the unwitting minds of the
masses.
Businesses are not the only entities that have profited from the AGW
propaganda. Foreign nations, such as China, France and Germany
regularly use the theory as diplomatic leverage to pressure the
United States to curb its industry, attempting to weaken the US as
the world’s lone super power. Developing nations in South America
have attempted to use their rain forests as leverage to receive
foreign aid and political clout.
The Brazilian government has asked
for over $1.5 billion in aid to fund projects that are aimed at
preserving their rainforests- similar to demanding a ransom.17 While
it is doubtful that they will receive the blank check their
government has asked for, it is clear that hundreds of millions of
dollars will continue to flow to the region in an attempt to prevent
them from destroying their own rainforests.
The AGW scientists, of course, are recipients of the successful
propaganda as well. As governments and industry realize that their
continued power and income rely on new “shocking” revelations by
authoritative scientists, more funding will be provided to ensure a
steady flow of fodder for the propaganda engine.
Scientists will
receive grants and endowments to undertake new and expensive studies
to solidify the theory and guarantee their salaries for years- that
is, as long as their reports confirm the AGW theory. In turn, those
universities that produce the scientists benefit from the surge in
new students seeking to “save the Earth” as well as from grants,
scholarships, and funding to increase the programs, which feed the
AGW machine.
The United States may also strategically benefit from the AGW
theory- if it can politically resist the worldwide call for it to
join the Kyoto Protocol. During the economic “eco-surge,” scientists
and inventors are receiving mass funding to develop and discover new
environmentally friendly fuels, including bio-fuels and hydrogen
engines.
If the scientists are successful and entrepreneurs can find
a way to profitably market these new products, the United States,
and consequently the world, will come to depend less on oil as a
source of energy. Although only 20% of US oil consumption comes from
the Middle East, OPEC, the largest conglomeration of oil producing
countries that determines production rates for those nations, is
comprised primarily of Middle Eastern nations.
This is in-line with
the current administration’s policy:
“By applying the talent and
technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our
environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our
dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past”.18
It seems
that nearly everyone and every nation can benefit from the AGW
theory to accomplish its goals- including the United States.
The Problem
If so many benefit from the AGW theory, what is the problem with
promoting it? From a marketer’s viewpoint, probably nothing;
however, a moral dilemma presents itself when the truth about global
warming is discovered and attempts to cover it up and discredit it
occur.
For hundreds of years, scientists, which the AGW proponents
hold up on a pedestal, have used a process of experimentation called
the scientific method. The basic tenant of the Scientific Method is
that you can only attempt to disprove a hypothesis. A hypothesis
that cannot be disproved does not mean that it is correct; it simply
becomes a theory, which other scientists must then try continually
to disprove.
Why then do scientific organizations and communities set out to
support or prove the AGW theory?
As scientists, they should be
trying to disprove the theory rather than find ways to reinforce it.
Further, the entire study of AGW theory is based on peer review,
which conclusions form an authoritative basis for future development
on the theory.
The problem is that good experiments are not based on
authority. If Galileo had based his reasoning on authoritative
writing of his day, he would never have developed the fact that the
universe does not revolve around the Earth. However, working
theories do serve to create a model to predict future observations-
this is what the IPCC has done, with illogical results that only
perpetuate the theory.
For years, supporters of the AGW theory have warned that the human
activities have led to global warming and threaten the existence of
human life itself. The hotter temperatures, they say, will cause
crops to wither and famine to spread as moisture is evaporated from
the soil.
Indeed, AGW champions have used every method of propaganda
to convince the world’s population that it will soon die.
Bad Models
In a petition signed by more than 17,000 scientists, they urged the
US government not to sign the
Kyoto Protocol. They argued that the
research data on climate change does not show that human use of
hydrocarbons is harmful.
Conversely, they claim that there is good
evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is
environmentally helpful.
''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or
will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the
earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate.
Moreover,
there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the
natural plant and animal environments of the earth.'' 19
The science behind the AGW theory
is simply not good science.
The
logic does not add up, the experiments are based on a faulty
hypothesis, the models based on that hypothesis are unsurprisingly
incorrect as well- which lead to inaccurate predictions designed to
only accomplish the agenda of the backers.
Assuming, momentarily, that the AGW theory is true, that humans have
caused the earth to warm exponentially, logical conclusions could be
drawn based on the theory. Indeed, contrary to the dire predictions
of fearful environmentalists, a warmer planet will have beneficial
consequences on the world’s food supplies.
Longer growing seasons,
more sunshine and precipitation, shorter winters and less frequent
frosts, with summertime temperatures rising only slightly, will
create a better environment for humans, plants and animals alike.
According to the AGW theory, as the planet warms, the oceans will
release copious amounts of carbon dioxide, a chemical compound that
plants thrive on and require for life. With the increased amounts of
carbon dioxide, plant life will flourish, absorbing the chemical as
a fertilizer. Since 1950, in a period of global warming, the
increase of carbon dioxide released from humans and the oceans have
helped the world's grain production soar from 700 million more than
2 billion tons last year.20
Clearly, the increased mean temperature
and warming in the northern hemisphere will have positive effects
for farmers across the world.
Continuing with the assumption that AGW model predictions on the
melting ice caps are true, the melting and warming of the polar ice
caps will have an equalizing effect on equatorial currents and wind
currents. Because there will be less drastic contrasts in
temperatures, hurricanes and violent storms, currently understood to
be caused when a cold air front meets a massive warm front and the
shifting air currents erupt in intense weather, will be less
frequent.
The warming temperatures will result in more evaporation,
as the calamitous IPCC predictions suggest, however, the evaporation
will occur on the ocean surface as well- which the increased
atmospheric temperatures will not be able to retain, causing life
giving rainclouds to form, delivering much needed rain to regions
already suffering drought.
The predictions presented by the AGW
crowd seem to only cover the negative aspects of the model,
stressing the evaporation portion of the hydrological cycle, yet
forgetting the rain that the evaporation inevitably brings.
The Center for Global Food Issues reports that, based on satellite
reports, the Earth has been getting greener since 1982, thanks
apparently to increased rainfall and CARBON DIOXIDE; and, worldwide
vegetative activity generally increased by 6.17 percent between 1982
and 1999 - despite extended cloudiness due to the 1991 eruption of
Mount Pinatubo and other well-publicized environmental stresses.
21
Apparently, plants thrive in carbon dioxide rich environments; these
studies have prompted greenhouse owners to pump large amounts of it
into their greenhouses resulting in record size tomatoes and
flowers.
Real science is based on repeatable scientific experiments that can
be reproduced anywhere in the world. Actual experiments have
resulted in finds from nearly 800 scientific observations around the
world that a doubling of carbon dioxide from present levels would
improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across
species.22
While the theory of AGW may not be disprovable, the
predictions based on the theory are wildly illogical and serve only
the agendas of AGW propagandists and those they serve.
The Real Story
The fact is that the Earth’s climate is always changing and has been
since it was formed. Ice core samples taken from the
Vostok Station
in Antarctica show that major ice ages followed by warming periods,
sprinkled with minor ice ages are a natural phenomenon; that is,
they occur regardless of human activity.
What causes these ice ages
and warming periods is unknown; however, it is likely that several
factors contribute to the episodes outside of human control.
Over millions of years, as Earth orbits the sun, its axis changes
ever so slightly. This is known as global forcing- what causes this
is unknown. A few degrees of change, however, can impact the
temperature of the Earth. Additionally, levels of green house gasses
can impact the temperature of the Earth by acting like an insulator
to keep solar radiation in the atmosphere.
Further, major
catastrophes, such as substantial volcanic activity can impact the
global temperature and climate as well as extra-terrestrial factors
including solar flares, asteroids and cosmic wind. Finally, a factor
that is rarely discussed amongst anthropologic global warming
propagandists is the theory that the Earth’s core is responsible for
the fluctuations in the ocean temperatures, and subsequently, the
atmospheric warming and cooling.
The increase of greenhouse gasses has been correlated with the
increase of temperature. Examination of the ice cores shows that
levels of carbon dioxide can be used to estimate historical
temperatures.
A fallacy that AGW proponents have perpetuated, is
that carbon dioxide levels cause the temperature to rise, when the
most logical explanation for the relationship is a warming/cooling
cycle where the increase of temperatures causes the oceans to
release large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The
increased release of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the primary
green house gas, subsequently compounds the warming process until
the skies become super-saturated with cloud cover.
The increased
cloud cover blocks the incoming solar radiation leading to lower
surface temperatures and increased snowfall, and denser carbon
dioxide levels in the oceans, rather than the skies. The decreased
cloud cover results in the surface temperatures rising and the
oceans releasing carbon dioxide; and the cycle starts over again.
Another possibly significant contributing factor to climate change
is solar flares and sun spots. Occasionally, the sun releases extra
amounts of energy, which is visible in the form of solar flares and
sunspots. These flare ups generate solar wind which disturbs the
path of cosmic dust in the path of the Earth’s orbit, blowing it out
of the way.
The cosmic dust would normally collide with the Earth’s
atmosphere, bonding to water vapor found in the atmosphere,
generating cloud cover. When solar flares erupt, cloud cover is
significantly reduced, causing temperatures to rise temporarily.
This factor is generally understood to be insignificant in the macro
view of global climate change.
Ocean water retains heat at a much higher percentage than the
atmosphere and has the ability to transfer heat at a much higher
rate than the atmosphere. This simply means that the oceans cannot
be easily warmed by atmospheric temperatures; yet, the opposite is
true for the atmosphere. The ice suspended over the oceans is 90%
submerged. To melt the polar ice caps, the water surrounding them
must be warmed. A simple demonstration can be constructed to show
that ice melts faster in water than it does out of it.
This phenomenon can be observed in both the northern and southern
poles.
The Arctic ice caps, which are suspended in the ocean, are
melting rapidly, as are the ice caps over the ocean in near
Antarctica. However, the ice over the land mass in Antarctica is
actually thickening- evidence that that it is the oceans warming
over the poles rather than the air. Since the ice caps are already
floating in the ocean, melting them will not cause the oceans level
to rise- except for the ice melted over land which drains into the
oceans.
A further observation regarding the theory that the heat is
originating from the oceans instead of the atmosphere is increased
precipitation levels. The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP)
reported that during the last 100 years, precipitation has increased
over land at high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, especially
during the cold season.23
Increased atmospheric gas temperature
results in increased water vapor retention; conversely, increases in
the oceans’ temperature results in evaporation, which results in
more precipitation. The report from UNEP supports the theory that
during periods of cooler atmospheric temperatures, precipitation
increases. Because of the increase in precipitation, ice is in fact
thickening over the landmasses at Antarctica and Greenland, as shown
by satellites, which use radar to measure thickness of ice.24
The
snowfall over the southernmost continent will remain there for a
long time and will continue to accumulate until a balance has been
achieved.
Atmospheric temperatures have increased significantly in
micro-climates regionally due primarily to the rising ocean
temperatures; though world-wide air temperatures have not increased
much at all. Europe and Greenland have experienced a rise in surface
temperatures due to the Gulf Stream, which gathers heat from the
Atlantic Ocean and delivers it to what would otherwise be a cooler
climate. North America is experiencing a warmer atmosphere due to
the warming of the arctic- due to the melting of the ice caps
surrounded by water, where most of the cooler air for North America
originates.
These explanations can all be attributed to the warming
of the oceans.
The Earth’s molten core is heating the oceans. Heat continually
radiates from the core to the mantle and is evidenced in the form of
volcanoes, geothermic wells, geysers, and the fact of geothermal
gradients, meaning that the deeper into the Earth one travels, the
warmer the temperature.
Because the center of the Earth is liquid,
it may move from place to place depending on gravity and centrifugal
forces. Since absolute North changes periodically, it may indicate
that the core is changing position as well. Observations from space
show that the Earth is not round, but pear-shaped, with the bulk of
the Earth located in the Southern Hemisphere.25
If the absolute
center of the Earth has recently relocated to the Southern
Hemisphere, it may account for the increased ocean temperatures, as
less land mass is located in the lower half.
Conclusion
Whether the Earth is warming from the oceans or from the sun, it is
imperative to recognize propaganda for what it is. Anthropogenic
Global Warming may be the largest misunderstanding of the Earth
nature since we thought the world was flat. The tools used to
convince the masses that such a theory is true are tools of pure
propaganda.
The unscrupulous scientists that perpetuate the lie are
only partially to blame, as they are manipulated by the politics and
commerce of the world. As AGW propagandists play with the
heartstrings of the Earth’s population and billions of dollars are
invested to prevent its demise, monetary funds are drawn away
unnecessarily from other more worthy projects.
The AGW propaganda
has found its way into the lives of citizens by every possible
avenue; the truth is available for those who earnestly seek it;
though covered by years of propagandistic lies.
Bibliography
American Enterprise Institute.
“AEI’s Organization and Purposes.” Accessed 24 September 2007
http://www.aei.org/about/
Euractive.com “Scientists fear global warming higher than
expected.” Accessed online 24 September 2007. http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/scientists-fear-global-warming-higher-expected/article-146995
Friends of the Earth. “Greasy Palms.” Accessed online 25
September 2007. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/greasy_palms_summary.pdf
Global warming. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Science
Dictionary. Retrieved September 26, 2007, from Dictionary.com
website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/global%20warming
Google.com Accessed 25 September 2007. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US&q=eco+friendly
Hummel, Richard. Consent #33(January 2003) “Kyoto or Else”
Accessed online 25 September 2007. http://www.freedomparty.org/consent/cons33_1.htm
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed 24 September
2007.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf
Kranish, Michael. “Bush calls for US to cut oil reliance Modest
domestic goals mark State of Union.” Globe Staff. February 1,
2006. Accessed online September 26, 2007. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/01/bush_calls_for_us_to_cut_oil_reliance/
Mathematics of the Earth’s Shape. Accessed 26 September 2007.
http://www.mckinleyville.com/cart/cabinet/cab_math.html
National Center for Policy Research. “Nonsense By Any Other
Name: Calling Carbon Dioxide a Pollutant Doesn’t Make It A
Pollutant.” Accessed 24 September 2007 http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA458.html
Out of the Jungle. “The Empire Strikes Back! Disputing Global
Warming” Accessed 24 September 2007 http://outofthejungle.blogspot.com/2007/02/empire-strikes-back-disputing-global.html
Pearce, Fred. “First Aid for the Amazon.” New Scientist.
Published 28 March 1992. http://media.newscientist.com/article/mg13318145.000-first-aid-for-the-amazon-the-worlds-richest-nations-wantto-save-the-rainforests-this-time-they-are-putting-their-money-on-researchand-modernisation-.html
Petition Project. Accessed 26 September 2007. http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Center for Global Food Issues, Global Warming Famine or Feast,
May 19, 2005. http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/global-warming-famine-or-feast
Rocky Mountain News. “Tempest erupts over hurricanes” Jim
Erickson. Accessed 26 September 2007 at:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5094006,00.html
Science Magazine, “Snow-fall driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice
Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea Level Rise.” Curt Davis. Access 26
September 2007 online: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5730/1898%20
Source Watch. “American Enterprise Institute.” Accessed 25
September 2007. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute%23Funding
UNEP. Precipitation Changes. Accessed 26 September 2007. http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/18.htm
WashingtonTimes.com “Separating climate fact from fiction.”
Timothy Ball, Tom Harris, Accessed online 26 September 2007:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070926/COMMENTARY/109260012/-1/RSS_COMMENTARY
Wheeler, Thomas. “It’s the End of the World as We Know It.”
Baltimore Chronicle. Accessed online 25 September 2007 http://baltimorechronicle.com/080304ThomasWheeler.shtml
Wikipedia. “American Enterprise Institute” Accessed online 24
September 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute
References
1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Working group one. Accessed 22 September 2007.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf
2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed 24
September 2007.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf
3 Euractive.com “Scientists fear global warming higher than
expected.” Accessed online 24 September 2007. http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/scientists-fear-global-warming-higher-expected/article-146995
4 WashingtonTimes.com “Separating climate fact from fiction.”
Timothy Ball, Tom Harris, Accessed online 26 September 2007:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070926/COMMENTARY/109260012/-1/RSS_COMMENTARY
5 IBID pg.2
6 global warming. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Science
Dictionary. Retrieved September 26, 2007, from Dictionary.com
website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/global warming
7 Rocky Mountain News. “Tempest erupts over hurricanes” Jim
Erickson. Accessed 26 September 2007 at:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5094006,00.html
8 Out of the Jungle. “The Empire Strikes Back! Disputing Global
Warming” Accessed 24 September 2007 http://outofthejungle.blogspot.com/2007/02/empire-strikes-back-disputing-global.html
9 National Center for Policy Research. “Nonsense By Any Other
Name: Calling Carbon Dioxide a Pollutant Doesn’t Make It A
Pollutant.” Accessed 24 September 2007 http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA458.html
10 Source Watch. “American Enterprise Institute.” Accessed 25
September 2007. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute%23Funding
11 American Enterprise Institute. “AEI’s Organization and
Purposes.” Accessed 24 September 2007 http://www.aei.org/about/
12 Wikipedia. “American Enterprise Institute” Accessed online 24
September 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute
13 Hummel, Richard. Consent #33(January 2003) “Kyoto or Else”
Accessed online 25 September 2007. http://www.freedomparty.org/consent/cons33_1.htm
14 Wheeler, Thomas. “It’s the End of the World as We Know It.”
Baltimore Chronicle. Accessed online 25 September 2007 http://baltimorechronicle.com/080304ThomasWheeler.shtml
15 Friends of the Earth. “Greasy Palms.” Accessed online 25
September 2007. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/greasy_palms_summary.pdf
16 Google.com Accessed 25 September 2007.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US&q=eco+friendly
17 Pearce, Fred. “First Aid for the Amazon.” New Scientist.
Published 28 March 1992. http://media.newscientist.com/article/mg13318145.000-first-aid-for-the-amazon-the-worlds-richest-nations-wantto-save-the-rainforests-this-time-they-are-putting-their-money-on-researchand-modernisation-.html
18 Kranish, Michael. “Bush calls for US to cut oil reliance
Modest domestic goals mark State of Union.” Globe Staff.
February 1, 2006. Accessed online September 26, 2007. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/01/bush_calls_for_us_to_cut_oil_reliance/
19 Petition Project. Accessed 26 September 2007. http://www.oism.org/pproject/
20 Center for Global Food Issues, Global Warming Famine or
Feast, May 19, 2005. http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/global-warming-famine-or-feast
21 IBID
22 IBID
23 UNEP. Precipitation Changes. Accessed 26 September 2007.
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/18.htm
24 Science Magazine, “Snow-fall driven Growth in East Antarctic
Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea Level Rise.” Curt Davis. Access
26 September 2007 online: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5730/1898%20
25 Mathematics of the Earth’s Shape. Accessed 26 September 2007.
http://www.mckinleyville.com/cart/cabinet/cab_math.html
|