This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

The Global Warming Scam

There is a lot of mainstream media hype surrounding "global warming". This is, by itself, an indication that there's some funny business going on. At this point, anybody who suggests "Does carbon dioxide really cause global warming?" is roundly decried as a fool.

There are three issues regarding global warming:

  1. Do carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming, or are there other factors?
  2. Is global warming overall beneficial or overall harmful?
  3. Is the solution to give the State more power? This is the most evil part. The solution for *ANY* problem is "Give the State more power!", when the State is the ultimate cause.
I tried understanding the chemistry of "carbon dioxide causes global warming", but didn't get it. I don't understand how carbon dioxide absorbs and reflects infrared heat radiation. After a minute or two googling, this was the best reference I could find for "Carbon dioxide does *NOT* cause global warming". His argument was "Carbon dioxide does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light. However, maximum absorption occurs after only 10-20 meters. After that, additional carbon dioxide makes no difference."

The Earth and the Sun have longer-term trends of increasing and decreasing temperature. Are we currently at a time where solar output is increasing, as part of a longer cyclical cycle? How much global warming is caused by human carbon dioxide emissions, and how much is caused by other factors?

There is evidence that, at some point in the past, plants were growing in Antarctica. This indicates that there are cyclical trends in the Earth's temperature.

There another important issue not frequently mentioned. Is global warming beneficial or damaging overall? Global warming is awful if you live in New Orleans below sea level. If you own property in northern Canada, then global warming helps you. Global warming leads to longer growing seasons and better crop yields. I consider "global warming is harmful overall" to be not proven. It might be cheaper to pay for people in New Orleans to move, than it is to try and stop global warming.

In the "global warming" debate, both sides accuse the other of being crazy conspiracy theorists. Some people say "Carbon dioxide causes global warming is scientifically proven. Therefore, you are a conspiracy theorist if you deny this scientific fact." Other people say "'Carbon dioxide causes global warming' is a crazy conspiracy theory. The science is very lousy."

Mainstream science says "Anti-psychotic drugs are beneficial!", which I know to be false. Scientists do fake research promoting anti-psychotic drugs. Is the science behind global warming just as lousy?

Some scientists have performed computer simulations that show carbon dioxide leads to global warming. However, these simulations have as a pre-assumption that carbon dioxide causes global warming. By setting up the rules of the simulation, the outcome is biased.

Most/all science is funded directly or indirectly by the State. This leads to biased conclusions. If politicians want to make an issue of global warming, then they provide extra funding for scientists who say "Carbon dioxide causes global warming!" By providing lots of funding for certain research, the State rewards scientists who have certain ideas, whether they're right or wrong.

Suppose that the vast majority of scientists believe "Carbon dioxide causes global warming!" The peer review system means anyone with the opposite viewpoint won't find a job. If a scientist says "Maybe carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming?", then he's really saying "Maybe all these other scientists are complete frauds?" In this manner, peer review discourages scientific progress.

Similarly, suppose a professor wanted to prove "Anti-psychotic drugs are worse than placebo over a 10-20 year period." The people approving the grant proposal are all brainwashed psychiatrists who believe "Anti-psychotic drugs are beneficial!" They'll see that research as a waste of time, and not approve it. I'm pretty sure that, in a proper scientific experiment, placebo would beat anti-psychotic drugs over an extended period of time.

The current State funding of science encourages professors to do small incremental improvements on previous results. There is no market for a scientist to re-verify old results. There is no market for a scientist who challenges the conventional wisdom in his field. Any scientist who tried to verify old results or do really original work would be forfeiting his career.

Suppose it were possible to scientifically prove "Carbon dioxide pollution causes global warming!" and "Global warming is bad overall!" I still disagree with the conclusion "The correct solution to the 'global warming' problem is to give the State more power."

How much damage is caused the carbon dioxide in a gallon of gasoline? I doubt it is more than a few cents a gallon. For that, it wouldn't be worth the hassle of collecting.

Suppose that burning a gallon of gasoline is proven to cause $1 of damage. Then what happens? You can't demand that everyone stop using gasoline. In that case, anybody who burns gasoline would have to pay $1/gallon into a fund to reimburse victims, exactly the same as taxes are collected in the present. However, the State would not have a monopoly over collecting this tax. In practice, the actual damage of carbon dioxide pollution is probably negligible and not worth collecting.

I suspect that the truth is closer to "Carbon dioxide is not harmful or causes negligible harm." than "OMFG!! Carbon dioxide is *BAD*!" Massive State propaganda for global warming makes me suspect funny business.

In the present, the State usually shields polluters from the negative consequences of their misconduct. For example, in NYC, playground asphalt was made from recycled tires. This was recently proven to contain harmful amounts of lead. Are the people who built the playgrounds personally liable? Is the person who decide to put lead in the asphalt personally liable? No. They are protected by sovereign immunity.

The global warming scam is the usual "Problem! Reaction! Solution!" paradigm. A problem or crisis is invented, probably one that was caused by the State in the first place. The media overhypes the problem. The solution is to give the State more power.

Most "carbon credit" or similar proposals are thinly veiled corporate welfare. The credits are allocated in a way that benefit insiders at the expense of everyone else. The regulations make it hard for anyone to start a new business. For example, old businesses get carbon credits based on their previous usage. A new business must buy carbon credits, or is forbidden. The only fair way to allocate carbon credits is "Each person gets an equal credit." The proposed systems allocate the credits to insiders, at the expense of everyone else.

I read an interesting conspiracy theory regarding global warming. After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was no powerful enemy to keep the general population frightened. "Global warming is a problem!" and "Terrorism is a problem!" are excuses that were invented. They were manufactured crises, as an excuse for an increase in State power.

I consider "Carbon dioxide causes global warming!" and "Global warming is damaging!" to be not proven either way. I don't know of any research performed by scientists I trust. Is the global warming crisis completely fabricated, as an excuse for increasing State power? Is the global warming crisis another form of corporate welfare? Even if you believe "Carbon dioxide causes global warming!" and "Global warming is damaging!", I disagree with "The solution is to give the State more power!" The State can only cause problems and make things worse.


fritz said...

Nice post FSK.. my research shows me that we are actually headed towards an ice age. Due to what is called a maunder minimum. When the sun has no sun spots it puts out about .5% less radiation. The month of may and early june has been setting record low temperatures across the country(look it up). But the media isn't reporting it.So actually green house gasses may help off set global cooling.

Its also my belief that the hype of going green is a ploy to sell America out.If you put so many regulations on a factories emissions that its not cost effective to operate within our country. So they move the operation to another country which
has no emission control. This way the green house gasses are still produced. But American workers have lost more ability to find jobs.And the items are still produced leaving the same carbon footprint. The only thing that has changed is where things are produced.


Romare said...

I don't know if its just me, but whenever I hear "going green" the only thing that comes up in my head is "more unnecessary new taxes". FSK, being a fellow new yorker i'm sure you've seen all of these new green buildings that are starting pop up all over the place. They're basically overpriced boxes with astroturf on their roofs, another day another sham.

Toronto Real Estate said...

Very nicely said, finally a reasonable article about the global warming. I'm so sick of reading all the articles about the catastrophic events this "global warming" will produce. I just wish I could see all the faces of the activists and especially Mr. Gore's face when they find out that this cooling trend will continue and that we're headed into a new Ice Age, just like you said Fritz.

Take care, Elli

Anonymous said...

Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book "The Skeptical Environmentalist". He thinks GW is real BUT what % of total GW is caused by CO2 is in question. But the most important thing is that he doesn't agree that GW is all bad. He points out the same thing you mentioned, that historically warming has been good for mankind. He is big into cost-benefit analysis, and says that even if GW is caused by CO2, carbon taxes are a very very expensive way to address CO2 emissions, and that there are much more cost effective ways to address it, AND there are also bigger issues than GW.

2nd, there is a scientist named Svensmark who came up with a theory of sun-caused GW which actually FITS the historical temperature data than the CO2 theory. His theory is that the sun's heliosphere (magnetic field) fluctuates and thus modulates the cosmic ray flux reaching the earth. These particles seed low level clouds (like in a cloud chamber). When the heliosphere is strong, fewer particles reach the earth and we get less low level clouds and we get warming. His theory is so compelling that CERN in Switzerland is conducting a series of experiments over the next few years to test one of the central tenets of his theory.

There is a strong correlation between sunspots and the heliosphere. No sunspots = weak heliosphere = cooling. The past few years we have had no sunspots, and this explains the past couple of unusually cold winters.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at