Is global warming a hoax?

Yes

1 of 42

by Steve Barker

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Is global warming a hoax? No.

I know that this might be confusing to the reader because this article is written to the yes side of the debate, but global warming is a reality in just the same way that global cooling is a reality. The temperature of the earth has been fluctuating since it was first created. Ice core samples from deep within the Antarctic glaciers are up to 425,000 years old, and the evidence they hold suggests the earth has been warming up and cooling down on a regular basis over periods of around 100,000 years. In fact it would seem that we are currently at the start of a cooling period.

What the question is really asking is whether global warming as a result of human activity is a hoax, to this the answer is a definite yes!

An obscure scientific hypothesis has existed since the 1880's, theorizing that an increase in CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels would increase the greenhouse effect of the upper atmosphere and therefore increase the temperature of the earth. However, based on the calculations used in this Victorian hypothesis the mean global temperature should have risen by more than 1 degree C by 1940, but it had not. Consequently this idea was not taken seriously, until that is when Margaret Thatcher in the 1980's, as the British Prime Minister turned this hypothesis into a major international political issue, and since then the environmental gravy train has continued to gather speed.

So why did Mrs Thatcher introduce the idea of global warming as a political issue? Because it was a means to an end in her political agenda. As the only woman leader of a major Western country she needed to be taken seriously on the international stage, and having a degree in Chemistry gave her an advantage over the other world leaders who were regarded as being scientifically illiterate. Her advisers quickly realized this and so encouraged her to make global warming an issue at every international summit, and so Britain became the number one promoter of the looming global warming disaster. Her ability to hold her own when debating this issue gained her the respect she had been looking for, which then carried across to the other political ideas she would propose.

The other world leaders needed to keep up with Mrs Thatcher on the issue, and so went back to their respective countries and asked their scientists for corroboration of what was being said. Despite the inaccuracies of the theory and the dubious nature of the science they were told that global warming could have major economical implications, especially for countries like the USA.

Margaret Thatcher had other reasons for promoting the idea that CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels would increase global warming, she could use this environmental argument for building more nuclear power stations in Britain. These nuclear power stations would provide us with a supply of electricity without increasing the greenhouise gasses in the atmosphere, and their by-product would be used to build the British nuclear arsenal. Furthermore the nuclear power stations would break the countries dependence on coal and thereby give her the ability to take revenge on the miners who had toppled the last Conservative government, she could close down the coal mines and be rid of the NUM (National Union Of Mineworkers).

To ensure that she had the academic backing for this theory money was thrown at any scientific institute that was prepared to agree with her, if some university wanted to ensure funding for a research project all they had to do was make sure they included the environmental angle in their application. No university professors were going to publicly disagree with the theory of global warming for fear of losing the funds they needed to exist.
So that is how the idea of global warming came to be a political hot potato, but the terminology soon changed to "climate change" when ironically, during this same period of time, scientists were talking about the start of the next ice age because the average annual temperatures were getting colder during the mid 1980's.

So why is it that the worlds leading experts who say that the climate of the earth is not being affected by human activity are being ignored? Al Gore rolled out some eminent scientists to back him in his address to the world, but they were not necessarily experts on the causes of climate change, but experts on the effects of climate change. Meteorologists can be found quite easily on the Internet telling us that the whole thing is a myth and that the science does not hold water. The whole theory of global warming through human activity is based on humans contributing to the greenhouse gasses that fill the atmosphere, yet the total contribution of humans is only 1%, the other 99% is from the earth its self.

The media is quick to jump on freak weather activity and use climate change as the cause, but they are equally quick to ignore the counter evidence against global warming. What about the unusual frosts in California during the last winter that caused a billion dollar loss of crops? What about the fact that during the time that sea ice has diminished in the Arctic it has increased in the southern ocean by 8%? How about the fact that the American weather satellites, regarded world wide for their accuracy, show no overall change in global temperatures since 1999? Why are all these things being ignored?

Money and power are the all too familiar answers. In the same way that Margaret Thatcher found the idea of global warming was advantageous to her, politicians the world over will not stand up and dispute the idea for fear of committing political suicide. And the measures that have had to be taken by the major countries of the world to combat this imagined disaster has generated billions in extra taxes for their coffers.

In 2006 the UK government raked in 35.4 billion in environmental taxes, this is an increase of 63% since 1994. Taxes on carbon fuels such as petrol and diesel gave them over 66% of this revenue, (23.4 billion). Climate change levies, and landfill taxes have been introduced since 2001 generating around 1.75 billion a year. Transport taxes have risen by 41% since 1994 including vehicle excise duty (road tax) and air passenger duty. The hardest hit with these taxes has been the ordinary household, their contribution to these obscene taxes was 54% in 2006.

So it would not be wise for any government that is able to generate this kind of revenue from it's people to suddenly announce that the very reason for the taxation was a fallacy, and for them to admit that their taxes would make no difference to global warming at all. Even better if you can convince the general public that there is a good reason for these taxes, then they will happily pay up without question. In 2007 32% of people who took part in a survey in the UK thought that climate change was amongst the top 3 issues affecting the country, and 10% of those surveyed thought that climate change was the number one issue. Clearly the media and the government spin doctors have done a good job!

In addition to this, what about the massive industry that has grown up around the climate change issue, the environment ministers, the environmental journalists, the TV show "experts", etc, etc? All of them are making money on the back of the global warming scam.

Learn more about this author, Steve Barker.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.