I have taken a break from reading Muir's "Life of Mahomet" and am currently devouring "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism," by Christopher C. Horner. Basically, his book posits that manmade global warming is alarmist nonsense, and he cites much proof to back up his claims.
Horner states that, yes, the Earth is in a warming period, but that is to be expected following the cold period known as "The Little Ice Age." The Little Ice Age was a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850. This period was devastating to many people in Europe, as the colder weather impacted agriculture, health, economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature. Increased glaciation and storms resulted from this cold climate.
Climate change alarmists like to note the striking increase in temperatures over the past couple hundred years, but don't tell you that the temperatures are merely returning to "normal" (if there is such a thing in climate) following an unusually cold period. This misrepresentation is akin to noting the cold weather of January, then in July noting that the temperature has increased by, say, 30 degrees and then extrapolating that rate of increase to December and concluding that mankind will fry like eggs by Christmas. Such a scenario is nonsense because it does not take into account natural variability of climate and its cyclical nature. Yet alarmists regularly employ such subterfuge to find the "facts" that support their predetermined conclusions. The truth is that warming and cooling periods are cyclical and not caused by variations in CO2 levels.
Horner notes that historically, warming periods bode well for mankind, because it increases the food supply and fewer people die from inclement weather. Yes, very hot weather kills people, but very cold weather kills many more. Warmer is generally better for life on Earth.
Prior to the Little Ice Age, there was a medieval warming period in which the temperatures were significantly higher than they are today. Instead of being catastrophic, this warmth created a golden age for agriculture, innovation and lifespan.
Horner states that, yes, the Earth is in a warming period, but that is to be expected following the cold period known as "The Little Ice Age." The Little Ice Age was a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850. This period was devastating to many people in Europe, as the colder weather impacted agriculture, health, economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature. Increased glaciation and storms resulted from this cold climate.
Climate change alarmists like to note the striking increase in temperatures over the past couple hundred years, but don't tell you that the temperatures are merely returning to "normal" (if there is such a thing in climate) following an unusually cold period. This misrepresentation is akin to noting the cold weather of January, then in July noting that the temperature has increased by, say, 30 degrees and then extrapolating that rate of increase to December and concluding that mankind will fry like eggs by Christmas. Such a scenario is nonsense because it does not take into account natural variability of climate and its cyclical nature. Yet alarmists regularly employ such subterfuge to find the "facts" that support their predetermined conclusions. The truth is that warming and cooling periods are cyclical and not caused by variations in CO2 levels.
Horner notes that historically, warming periods bode well for mankind, because it increases the food supply and fewer people die from inclement weather. Yes, very hot weather kills people, but very cold weather kills many more. Warmer is generally better for life on Earth.
Prior to the Little Ice Age, there was a medieval warming period in which the temperatures were significantly higher than they are today. Instead of being catastrophic, this warmth created a golden age for agriculture, innovation and lifespan.
I'm more than halfway through Horner's book, but so far he has dealt devastating blows to the myth of manmade global warming. He notes that the warming isn't even global - it is occurring in the Northern Hemisphere but the Southern remains static. He also notes that the warming is neither catastrophic, unusual or man made. Most of the hype comes from the media who want to sell newspaper and magazine articles. But it is only hype.
The truth is simple: there is no credible proof that man made greenhouse gases have any significant impact on world climate. We are in the midst of one of the biggest hoaxes in history. The question is, why?
I'll deal with that in a later post.
Credits: Cartoon by Sam Ryskind. Visit his site here.
No comments:
Post a Comment