For a chronological list of articles just this year alone on the Global Warming fraud can be found here.

For those that were duped by the media uproar of Global Warming over the last 15+ years, do not beat yourself up too badly.  The take away from all this is something of great value: Always, always, always, always consider the source of what you read, hear or see.  Everyone has motive, everything is opinion.

Let me reveal my motivation.  I do not want to pay higher taxes, or see jobs flow out of this country to India or China just because Al Gore says so.  I do not wish to watch my beloved country sink into an under-developing morass, trading our ingenuity and pioneering spirit for the approval of other nations.

And what about the motivations of the mainstream media?  Strangely, they are eerily silent after Professor Phil Jones’ admission that there is no truth to Global Warming, especially given how strident they have been on this issue year after year.  But is that really so strange?  I don’t think so.  Not when you consider that media stations like NBC and its sister stations are owned by GE.  GE stands to make billions off of you and your fear of Global Warming.  Michael Walsh has a great article on this media silence.  Remember, this is the same mainstream media that blamed the blizzard that buried the east coast last week on Global Warming.  In fact, they also blamed a lack of snow for the Olympics in Vancouver on Global Warming too.  As the Heritage Foundation article put it, “Global Warming – Is There Anything It Can’t Do?”

If confronted by a Global Warming follower, you might hear that somehow the onus is on you to prove that Global Warming is false.  They’re sort of right, but not really.  Science works by putting forth a theory and then working hard to find evidence that disproves your own theory.  So the onus is actually on them, the Global Warming advocates, to seek evidence to the contrary; this is the point of the white swans thought exercise (i.e., if all swans are believed to be white, finding one black swan disproves the theory).  And then remind the Global Warming adherents that every time someone has compiled hard evidence that disproves Global Warming, they have been aggressively silenced or ignored by the mainstream media.  And also remind them of Al Gore’s statements on this issue: “The debate is over.”  That is not how science works.

Finally, do your own research.  With today’s access to information, this is relatively simple with just a few minutes of time.  Read both sides of any issue and always follow the money.

Additional Sources: BBC Video Interview

UPDATE: Phil Jones retreats further from Global Warming

Granted, there isn’t the money involved in these other disciplines as compared to Climatology, but really, this is shameful.  Scientists should hold themselves to the highest standard, like Petr Horava.

In a recent article in the December 2009 issue of Scientific American about gravity, time and space, a new theory on gravity was discussed.  The scientist proposing the new theory, Petr Horava, is a scientist at the University of California, Berkeley.  The article works through his theory and describes other scientists who agree with it, and others who don’t.  In fact, the article describes how one scientist, Diego Blas of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, has re-worked Horava’s theory.  Horava’s response?  He completely welcomes the changes:

“When I proposed this, I didn’t claim I had the final theory.  I want other people to examine it and improve it.”  –Petr Horava

Perhaps one day, real scientists who have the same attitude as Petr Horava will outnumber the pseudo-scientists currently dominating the Climatology discipline.

• Scientific Method.  This is the basis for all science.  To paraphrase, it is based on objective observation of reality in an attempt to increase understanding.  It is an iterative process, constantly refining the conclusions, holding them up for peer review, and even discarding them if they unravel under scrutiny.  Scientists follow the evidence, without bias, to form theories which can be used to predict outcomes.
• Religion.  This begins with a set of conclusions and beliefs passed down from a higher authority with the understanding that no evidence or proof will be provided.  The expectation is that we humans should accept these beliefs on faith.
• Nonsense.  This begins with one or more conclusions, and then sets about to find evidence to support the claims.  It rejects that which directly opposes the aforementioned conclusions, usually attempting to discredit those putting forth the arguments, sometimes through vicious personal attacks.

Global Warming is an issue that should be defined by the Scientific Method, and only the Scientific Method, because if we are going to make political, economic and legal decisions that will affect millions, if not hundreds of millions of lives, then we need to be absolutely certain that we can predict our planet’s long-term future.  The Religion and Nonsense approaches were provided to help us recognize that sometimes folks slip between the realms of science and non-science.  Sometimes this happens unconsciously, especially around a divisive issue that inspires great passion.  But when money and power are also involved, people often slip on purpose, and we need to be able to recognize when this happens.

So, political debating, fear-mongering, CAPITAL LETTERS and other tactics of persuasion will not be found here in this article.  Instead, we will simply follow where the facts lead us, which may be nowhere.

There are two major sources of heat for our planet, just like any other planet in any other solar system: our planet’s core, and the star(s) our planet orbits.  Exactly how much heat our planet’s core puts forth at any given time is still not completely understood, though we are learning more every day.  Likewise, we know less about the cycles of the sun, and the heat it generates at any given time.  While it is clear that variations in the sun’s energy has a profound impact on our climate, predicting these changes have not yet been mastered.

This means that predicting the long-term trends of our climate cannot be made with any certainty with the knowledge we have today.

We could stop here, but let’s keep digging a little more.

When you begin to add in all of the other numerous factors that contribute to our climate, such as weather patterns, variations in sunlight absorption by our atmosphere, changes in the water temperatures of our oceans, the gravitational pull of the moon, the stresses on earth’s core, how fast our planet rotates on its axis, the angle of the axis, and the proximity of the earth to the sun, it becomes an even more complex problem.

And we haven’t even gotten to the greenhouse gases yet.

It is hard to imagine that our planet has been around for over four and a half billion years.  That’s an incomprehensibly long time.  When our planet began, it was essentially one large, molten blob.  And yet, geologists have a theory called Snowball Earth, which describes a period of time when our planet was covered entirely in ice, from pole to pole.  True to the Scientific Method, other research discounts this theory.  In any case, our earth has enjoyed drastic changes.

One important question is: do these environmental extremes reoccur?  Well, we know there were several ice ages.  We also know that the earth was warmer than it is now; for example, during the Mid-Cretaceous period –about 120 to 90 million years ago –and during the Mid-Pliocene –about 3 million years ago.  Are there patterns to these changes?

As noted above, we don’t know enough about our planet’s history to make accurate predictions about what is to come, with or without human intervention.  We’re still unraveling the evidence offered up by this planet’s past.  And remember, we know even less about the patterns of the sun.

And while we theorize as to what extent greenhouse gases contributed to the climate changes in the past, we don’t know exactly what drove the earth’s climate from one extreme to the other, what was the catalyst.  So while we can easily see and smell and cough the pollution our industry and vehicles produce, we cannot predict with any certainty how this will affect the future of our planet’s climate.

Of course, no one wants to make the planet unlivable for ourselves.  But the notion that we could destroy our planet has been raised with vigor over and over again.  This, of course, is a debating tactic.  Fear is, as we all know, a great motivator, and it can only be defeated with truth and fact.  The truth is it’s a human conceit to say we will destroy the earth.  It is far more likely that the earth will destroy us through natural disasters, disease or other phenomena.  Regardless, all we could ever do is make this planet inhospitable, or at the very worst, uninhabitable for us in our current evolutionary and technological state.

And since no one would want that to happen, it would make common sense to reduce gases that are biologically harmful to us, just as it makes sense not to farm crops on top of radioactive waste.  It also makes sense to investigate ways to make our industries and vehicles produce fewer chemicals that are harmful to humans, whether or not they actually impact our climate.

But far more importantly, it makes even more sense to explore other habitable planets, and to consider how to terraform them for future human colonization.  It defies all common sense and logic to put all our eggs in one basket.

On the other hand, what does not make sense is to mandate these changes to our daily lives and our industries through laws, taxes, fees, tariffs and fines.  The Cap and Trade bill being discussed today would place a tremendous financial burden on everyone’s life in this country, though it would do little to change the overall output of these chemicals world-wide.  That’s because this bill would have little or no impact on the production of the so-called greenhouse gases produced by other countries.  The only real outcome is that our taxes would see massive increases, and we would lose manufacturing jobs to countries like India, China and Mexico who do not share our goals of reducing the production of these chemicals.

The moral of this story and the key for all of us all is to keep our eyes and ears open to the real facts.  Follow without bias where the science leads us.  Be vigilant.  And most important of all, discern when those with something to gain (e.g., Al Gore, who stands to make billions from the Cap and Trade bill) slip from science to non-science, or just plain nonsense, in order to muddy the waters on our climate issue.

Additional Sources: http://www.climatechangefacts.info/