Global Warming, A Skeptic's View

Well, my friends, I am a Global Warming Skeptic. Is the Earth warming? I though it was, but the more I read, the more the data seems inconclusive. Does that mean I think we should go on polluting the Earth? Well, no. In practical terms, we will of course, continue to pollute. But I'll go out on a limb and say that less pollution is better than more pollution. There are enough valid reasons for this that I don't need your bogus Global Warming reasons to convince me.

After a unfortunately short conversation with a friend of mine who seems quite convinced of Global Warming, I sent him this email: Global Warming Letter It includes a link to the Junk Science article on Global Warming. If you're still one of those folks that think Global Warming's on the verge of destroying the planet, and you can only stomach one Global Warming Skeptic article, by all means make it this one. They've done some good study on the subject.

Now, you may be saying to yourself, "But there's a strong consensus among scientists that Global Warming is real!" There a many ways to achieve consensus. One is through reason, but there are other techniques available. Consider the many countries where "democratic" elections re-install presidents with 100% support. That's right. The Global Warming exaggerators may employ less-than-scientific methods of persuasion to change your mind. They may threaten to make you unemployable if you don't agree with them, effectively excommunicating non-believers from the scientific community. All while they're griping that one Global Warming Exaggerator might have been threatened once, according to a rumor from a credible source. Here's Dr. Cullen's threat. The Exaggerators are now making ties between skeptics and neo-Nazism by referring to skeptics as "deniers." The name-calling wouldn't be there if they had a valid case, would it? Read this one, too: The Real Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming: Skeptics Have Valid Arguments

There are also some interesting articles on Wikipedia. This one is biased towards Global Warming Exaggeration: Global warming controversy. You rarely hear about the List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. Who knew there were scientists that disagree with the consensus?

You might even remember dire predictions that 2006 would be the worst hurricane season ever in the Atlantic, surpassing even 2005, and that this would provide further evidence of global warming. In 2005 there were thirty storms, of which fifteen were hurricanes. In 2006 there were nine storms, of which five were hurricanes. That's right, nine storms. Hardly worth even getting the Hurricane Center all geared up for the season. Is that proof that there is no global warming? Of course not. It might be an indication that the exaggerators couldn't predict Christmas with a calendar, much less the average temperature in 2100.

Reuter's reports that the United States is "the world's largest greenhouse gas polluter accounting for nearly one quarter of all carbon emissions." That much may be true. What they're not telling you is that the U.S.'s "carbon uptake" matches our carbon output. The net effect? Zero. Contrast that with Japan, whose carbon output is seven times their uptake. Wow.