I don’t believe in Global Warming. I’m not a scientist, but that’s okay cause most pushing Global Warming aren’t using science to back up their claims. Instead they use “consensus” to reinforce their arguments. This means that rather than using scientific methods like observation and testing they’re using votes of their peers.

That’s fine. If their “consensus” is good enough, then I figure the “consensus” of me and my friends is good enough to point out the weaknesses of their lame ideas. On a side note a lot of these people are professors at Universities and Colleges. I wonder if they would accept research papers based on the “consensus” of the students working together. I’m guessing not.

Lack of Evidence

The media loves to report on every higher than average temperature anywhere on the global and begin lecturing us on a hotter Earth. One of the problems is that for every hotter than normal temperature, there is one that is cooler.

The Spring of 2008 (this last Spring) was one of the coolest on record for North America. The Russians predicted this cooling a few years ago but it was largely ignored by the “open minded” thinkers in the West until it happened. Then those same think tanks ran to their climate models and quickly reprogrammed in a cooling streak.

I’m sorry, but I thought a model was supposed to allow us to predict what will happen next. If a model can’t let us predict or measure, what good is it? Why keep using it? From what I understand, there are multiple models and they’re all wrong. This is truly perplexing you’d think that they’d only need one model if it had any credibility.

Strange Claims

There is a “consensus” claim that deserts will grow, the sea levels will rise, there will be a lack of fresh water and the salinity of the oceans will go down thanks to the influx of melting ice caps.

Let’s look at these things one a time:

Assume the Earth heats causing the ice at the poles to melt. That will increase the amount of fresh water. But heat causes evaporation, which causes the atmosphere to become saturated, which causes rain. So why would you believe that deserts are going to expand? What you’re doing is confusing two things that are cemented together in a lot of people’s minds: namely a heat wave and a drought. It is possible to have hot temperatures and normal rain. Conversely it is possible to have a drought and normal temperatures. Case and point Antarctica is a desert.

I would expect real people of science to already know this. So why do I have to point it out?

The sea levels will rise. I don’t believe this claim. Water is unusual in the fact that it expands when it gets cold. This is why it floats. It also means that it takes up more space when in solid form. Now consider that when you see an iceberg, you’re looking at a tiny percentage of the actual ice there. So if the ice should suddenly melt to water, it will take up LESS space. The North Pole is nothing more than a giant chunk of floating ice. If it suddenly melted the whole piece would take up less space. So simple common sense would dictate that odds are the ocean level would probably stay the same.

Again I would expect scientists to already be thinking about this, but I haven’t seen any of them discussing it. Why was it left out?

Claim: Lack of fresh water. Why? Those icebergs are just pieces of fresh water. Again the heat will cause evaporation, which causes rain, which logically will result in growing lakes and ponds as well as swelling rivers and creeks.

Finally the salinity of the ocean will change. Well I’d agree that it might change at the poles – it will equalize. The polar oceans tend to be saltier than the ocean at the equator. This is because salt lowers the freezing point. That’s why so many people dump salt on their sidewalks in the winter time. But I doubt that this is what Global Warming scientists were talking about when they talk about the saltiness of the oceans. Like most other things, their logic doesn’t pan out here either.

Strange Reactions

You’d think that any scientist would be happy to answer these basic questions. But not the Econuts. Oh no.  In places where they reign, they’re diligently working to pass laws against the “global warming deniers” to prevent them from talking, writing or asking questions like those above. I think it shows insecurity in their theory. Their tendency to declare anyone questioning them to be nothing more than either deluded or a tool of big oil only reinforces this belief in my mind.

They’re opposed to CO2 right? Then why heap praise on people like Prince Harry who have converted their cars to run on wine? His car is still burping out big clouds of CO2. In fact, any time you light a fire at all you’re creating CO2. So the real enemy isn’t “big oil” it’s fire. And yet several of their heavier handed regulations target “big oil”.

If CO2 is such a problem and vehicles are the primary criminals responsible for such things, why do Econut leaders like Al Gore continue to fly around in private jets and ride around in limos at exotic resorts where they sit in air conditioning and discuss how everyone else is polluting the planet? Because they buy “carbon credits”? What are “carbon credits”? And (assuming that Global Warming is such a problem) why is it good enough to just zero themselves out? If they really cared wouldn’t they stay home, eat peanut butter sandwiches with the windows open to stay cool AND STILL buy their “carbon credits” thus actually combating Global Warming?  

Yeah you’re right, the POLITICIAN Al Gore would never lie to us. He just wouldn’t tell us the whole truth like that the company selling him his “carbon credits” (Generation Investment Management) is run by him.

I also fail to see how gun control, gay marriage, raising taxes, socializing medicine and other miserable ideas are going to stave off Global Warming. None of the above cut back the amount of CO2 that is produced. I do notice that all the above are the left wing platform in a nutshell, which makes me really suspicious about the real motives of the people pushing this stuff.

Conclusion

I can already hear the flood of emails I’m going to get from Econut supporters accusing me of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, being a tool of big oil, being a tool of the Bush administration and several other things that do nothing to address or change my insightful observations. It’s just an attempt to assassinate my character.

Did I say that we should pollute the globe? Did I say we should dump our garbage in the ocean and hunt all the animals of the Earth to extinction? Did I say we shouldn’t conserve energy or look for other forms of energy? Did I say we should be wasteful? No. I didn’t.

Lastly – Did I say that Global Warming isn’t happening? No. I said that there is no evidence of it because there isn’t. I said I don’t believe it is happening. I’m open to new information, but I’m not willing to listen to fear mongering propaganda. Which is all the Econuts have.