Even More Evidence Disproving the Great Global Warming Hoax

Written by John Wilder, guest post.

Mall of AmericaMall of America

The scientists have gone to great pains to put the blame on the temporary slight increase in the average global temperature on CO2. There are no scientific experiments according to the Scientific Method to prove this. The scientists conveniently forget to tell you that we have been in a world-wide cooling cycle for the last eight years with record low temps being set around the globe.

We have been told by the scientists that we have had an increase of 80 PPM of CO2 in the atmopshere delivered with a breathless sense of doom. We are all going to die if we don’t fix it. Let me put this into perspective for you. The fractional equivalent of 80PPM is 8/100,000ths of 1% This is a tiny trace amount by any objective standard. The government even allows trace amounts of rat droppings in our food.

Here is something even more telling. I decided to graph what 80 PPM looked like. I started drawing a graph and could only come up with 12 marks per inch with enough space to show the marks. If you divide 12 into 100,000 to determine how long the graph is, it actually comes to 8,333 inches. If you divide that by 12 again to determine how many feet the graph would have to be, it comes to 694 feet long. The increase on that scale would come to 3/4 of an inch on that 694 foot long scale. Sort of puts it into a different perspective doesn’t it?

There can be a case to be made for man made or anthropogenic global warming but it has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. We have over 5,000 jets flying over our air space in this country at any one time. That does not include the rest of the jets flying around other countries. These jets have an exhaust temp of 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. That could add to the average temperature increase.

We have millions of miles of asphalt roads that heat up and reflect back the heat causing increased temps. We have millions of houses with asphalt shingles that heat up and reflect heat back into the atmosphere.

We have millions of cars and trucks that put heat out into the atmosphere.

Then we have the heat sensors for recording temps being set up in cities. This gives a false positive for increased temps because of the “heat island effect”. This is a scandal that is little reported in scientific circles much as less in public circles.

We also have industry as well as heating plants burning coal to generate electricity that all contribute heat into the atmosphere.

The best microcosm of the globe can be represented by the Mall of America located in Minneapolis , MN. It is the second largest mall in the world. The temperatures routinely get down to 20 below zero in the wintertime. Now the Mall has no heating apparatus or furnaces of any kind. In spite of this, it stays a comfortable 68 degrees F in the winter time. That is an increase of 88 degrees F from outside ambient temperature. How is this possible. All of the heat from the lights in the mall plus the aggregate body heat from all of the visitors.

We have increased the world population by billions of people. Isn’t it possible that the increase population and all of the other heat causing factors mentioned in the article could result in the one degree increase in world wide temperatures. Does this not make more sense than CO2 which is a heavier than air gas that sinks to the ground when it is released. There is a principle in science called Occam’s Razor. The gist of Occam’s Razor is that the simplest explanation is usually correct. Does not my explanation make more sense than CO2? You decide and let me know what you think.

Editor's note: John Wilder graduated from College with three degrees, two of which in the sciences. He went on to graduate school for clinical psychology. Additionally, he worked in the scientific field for several years.

Comments  

 
John
# John 06-10-2011 11:15
There is more where this came from
John Wilder
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-10-2011 14:28
Hey John! Nice piece. I am of the opinion that the only identifiable anthropogenic warming is the UHI, and of course it is not global, but local. When one calculates the suface area of the Earth and then the percentage that has been 'developed', that percentage is unbelievably small, and cannot possibly change the Earth's overall climate.

And heat rises. Jet exhaust et al will rise and cooler air will sink to take its place. Convection. Our Earth has no roof.

This morning, 20 miles from my home in the country, the city was over 10F warmer. 13F warmer before sunrise. The official temperatures are recorded at an international airport, in the middle of that large metropolitan city heat island.

I found the missing heat!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-13-2011 12:29
Besides the urban heat island effect there are land use changes made by man. Farming, logging and roads which have very localised effects on temperatures.

I watched a science show last night about stars and Black Holes. They mentioned the amount of energy from the sun in about 40 min equals the amount of fuel consumed by man in one year.

So i suppose figure out how many minutes a year 525600 is affected by the 40 man contributes.

Not sure how it factors in but energy from hydrocarbons is really only stored energy from the sun. Stored for a very long time but still from the sun. Much like wood burning energy is just a delayed release of solar energy.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-13-2011 13:25
Hey amirlach! I can take a walk around my property and get readings of over 5F difference only feet apart. Cool air pools, and dependent on wind directions can pool in different spots on different days.

The weather station nearest my home is up against a south facing limestone bluff, in an asphault parking lot between two brick buildings. On sunny days, especially when the breeze is out of the south, it can read warmer than the station at the international airport 20 miles to the south in the city.

That is just one more reason why getting excited over a perceived change of 1.1F is ridiculous, even more so now that it has dispappeared!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
John Wilder
# John Wilder 06-10-2011 14:33
Hey Gator
Thanks, but I am unfamiliar with the abbreviation UHI, what is that? Backs up my claims about the heat island effect huh?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-10-2011 14:47
Hey John! UHI is Urban Heat Island effect. A study in Britain showed the heat forms a dome around the city, and the heat can be defined by concentric domes. The closer you are to the urban center, the warmer it is. Their study showed increases in temperatures as high as 14F compared to the surrounding countryside. So even a weather station well outside a city center is going to reflect that heat.

That is why Hansen et al rearranged the weather station distribution.

blog.qtau.com/2010/05/dude-where-is-my-thermometer.html
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Joker
# Joker 06-13-2011 05:18
Hi Gator, been away for a few days.

What you describe i.e. UHI is one of the reasons why most warmists are city folks, if you get a bunch of folks in a warm place and tell them the world is getting hotter, its more than likely they will beleive it.

Apparently there is talk here in the UK of Climate Change being dropped from the school curriculum, the first signs of sanity I hope.

Brainwashing kids with stuff like that should be classed as a crime.

Has anyone else heard about this?

Good to be back although it was a very chilly weekend away more like January than June.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 06-13-2011 05:35
Nice to see you back Joker, sorry the camping trip was soggy for you.

I take the dog out when it is raining and she looks at me with this "make it stop" look. I keep telling her I can't do anything about wet. I can't stop it from snowing, hailing, blowing trees down, etc. and I know this.

Too bad we have so many that seem to think they can.

Dug up a world map today to get an idea of latitudes between here and there. I think the south of the UK is around where I am which is 44.9 N. But you have a lot more water around you than we do (even with all our lakes).

Keep us in the loop on what the schools do, that would be some good news.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-13-2011 06:43
Hey Joker! Even though you camped in the rain, I'm jealous. I used to backpack and camp out at least once per month back before I built the house (still building...) and that kind of time recharges the batteries and mind.

We finally broke a heat wave driven by global warming a blocking pattern. The cooler weather has returned, but then so have the storms.

My next door neighbor has an old friend who is a city dweller and had planned a global warming march yesterday. They were all excited because the temperatures had been running at or near record levels for about a week. Yesterday it did not get above 75F (well below average) and felt like a fall day. The march was called on account of bad cool weather! :D

I have now been permanently banned from "Make Wealth History'. :-)

Red Jeff still has free access, and he and amirlach have had some success posting. Alas for the ignorant masses, Gator's voice has been silenced by yet another fascist. The site owner, Jeremy said...

There are people on Make Wealth History who strongly disagree with me, month after month, and they're still here and we're still discussing. You, and your fellow commenters from Climate Change Dispatch, are not in this category. You oppose everything I support, and stand up for everything I oppose. It can only be deliberate - you comment on my site because you like to argue, because you like a fight, and because you despise people who hold my views. That's fine, but you're going to have to find that fight elsewhere.

Obviously you've been banned from sites before. You claim this is because 'warmists' censor you, but don't flatter yourself. You've been banned because most website moderators take a harsh line with trolls. (“someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion”) I've let you have your say, but I have a responsibility to other readers, and I'm not content to let you trash every comment thread on every post.

Yes, he thinks he has other readers. I saw two that agreed with him in weeks of discussions.

(cont'd below)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-13-2011 06:51
(cont'd)

Jeremy went on to psychoanalyze me...

You come across as a thoroughly unpleasant person online. I doubt you are in person. I suspect that you use the anonymity of the internet to say things you couldn't say in person, to make yourself feel big. Who knows why, a broken relationship, a failed business perhaps. Not for me to know, but I hope you find the wholeness you are looking for.

This was a message sent to me via my personal email. He then rebutted my argument on his site without disclosing to readers that I had been censored, making it appear he had silenced me through debate.

I told Jeremy he would have no choice but to cemsor me, since his positions are indefensible. The last straw was an alarmist video blaming Armageddon on AGW. I pointed out it was pure fearmongering propaganda and he shut me down.

He claims to be a 'skeptic' and that he fair. judge for yourselves.

I wear his censorship as a badge of honor.

Now about that long overdue camping trip... :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 06-13-2011 07:46
Don't feel bad Gator, "actually thoughtful" keeps doing the same thing to me. I generally don't get into that though I have ad a couple years worth of psychology courses with nothing less than an A in any of them. The issues with grades in some other areas are my own fault for not studying enough (i.e. screwing around with other things too often) but I've never had that problem with my psych courses.

He keeps confusing hatred with disgust.

Now while I hate the IPCC and the scam they are trying to pull, people like AT just disgust me.

Big difference.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-13-2011 13:18
Hey Robert! I think one of the main problemshe had with me is that I am an American. I find that leftists, expecialy from other countries, hate Americans. It also did not help that I continually pointed out his duplicities.

But others were allowed that latitude without being censored. Red Jeff has continuosuly argued with him over various postings and even this morning told Jeremy he 'cannot have it both ways'.

I take nothing these people say personally because they do not know me. I have principles that guide me and as long as I am true to those principles, they have no room to criticize me. For it is they who bend with the wind as long as it is blowing to the left.

His lust for leftist agendas has blinded hin to what is right and wrong.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
games4us5
# games4us5 06-10-2011 14:45
I thought temperature was *weather* related, not climate. I live in a major metropolis with many surrounding suburbs. The suburbs in the foothills can be 10 degrees cooler than us, or 10 degrees warmer, depending on which way the wind is blowing and the next cold front coming in.

Grrrr. Average ground temperatures around the world MAKE NO SENSE. They should stop it already!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
seven degrees
# seven degrees 06-13-2011 11:03
Satellite temperature readings are the only way to get valid measurements of the global climate. Ground measurements are too skewed by local temperature variations. Urban areas are indeed typically warmer than rural or sububan areas just as living near the ocean generates different temperatures than desert. To wit, last weekend I was in Palm Springs and the car temp in a parkting lot reached 100F; I drove to the coast and it was 40 degrees less, a pleasant 65.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
seven degrees
# seven degrees 06-12-2011 18:17
Nice hypothesis. But for anyone to really understand the true scientific debate (not the crap of the hoax) regarding climate, one has to answer the question: what is the effect of the negative and positive feedback loops on global temperature? The nuts are only referencing the positive effect of C02 of heat increase and completely ignoring the negative feedback loops that counter it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Jeff
# Jeff 06-14-2011 22:36
The positive feedback loop for AGW is a fictitious aspect the IPCC added to prove their ideology. Though it is true that if glaciers were to reach as far south as mid-Texas, there would be a runaway cooling and there could be another Snowball Earth Event, a runaway warming by CO2 feedback loop is not real science. It is science fiction. Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT did a 20 year satellite measurement study that shows when there is increased temperatures, there is additional solar radiation - more heat dissipated into space. If you cant find a copy of the study, it is posted on a site - www.getrealusa.org

This site has a lot of good technical information to show AGW is a con-job.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Donna
# Donna 06-16-2011 20:26
ICLEI is a foreign organization on a mission to transform local governments. Each ICLEI mandate, policy and agenda is based on the principle that the collective good is more important than individual rights; this is in direct opposition to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 06-16-2011 21:13
And let us not forget that those who decide what the collective good is seem to always manage to exempt themselves from that collective.

Do as I say not as I do didn't work real well with me when I was a kid, if anything my attitude towards that type of thing has gotten worse over the years.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-17-2011 05:52
Hey Donna! You are so right, this is all about the 'rights of man' versus 'the rights of men'. Serfdom versus freedom.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
The Doctor Timelord
# The Doctor Timelord 10-25-2012 19:31
Evidence for global warming
1. No period of time compares to how hot it was from 1980 to 1990, and the industrial revolution had just taken place. Co2 levels were increasing. So was the temperature.
2. Ice waters and glaciers melting steadily with the rise in co2 levels
3. Sea level rise
4. The 315 to 370 ppm rise in co2 levels over 40 years
5. ~Carbon dioxide levels are now 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years, according to research into Antarctic ice cores published on Thursday in Science.~
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
John  Wilder
# John Wilder 10-25-2012 20:39
You are incorrect, the hottest time in our country was back in 1934 in the Great Dust Bowls.

CO2 levels don't cause warming as in the release of NASA long term weather satellite readings.

There has been no appreciable sea level rise and if substantial warming occurred the sea level would drop due to the exponential in crease in the rate of evaporation in the Hydrologic Cycle.

The amount of CO2 is still in microscopic levels and the increase is 55/100,000ths of 1%, sorry the facts prove you wrong
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 10-27-2012 09:11
Re-read #1 where you say:

Quote:
1. No period of time compares to how hot it was from 1980 to 1990, and the industrial revolution had just taken place. Co2 levels were increasing. So was the temperature.
By 1980 to 1990 the industrial revolution had not "just taken place" it was a long since, done deal.

You may want to return to school and study history, critical reasoning, technical writing, and a few other topics before you come back and make a further fool of yourself.

But if you really want to look like you have no clue feel free to continue your rants.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 10-27-2012 17:01
Quote:
1. No period of time compares to how hot it was from 1980 to 1990, and the industrial revolution had just taken place. Co2 levels were increasing. So was the temperature.
Wrong again! Want to know what does correlate with observations? PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2. wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
The Doctor Timelord
# The Doctor Timelord 10-26-2012 14:56
And, hello? Burning coal and turning on cars and trucks adds CO2 to the atmosphere. It has been proven the rise of CO2 in the air has gone right on along with the rise in global tempature, especially after the Industrial revolution. The two words that
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 10-27-2012 16:37
Quote:
It has been proven the rise of CO2 in the air has gone right on along with the rise in global tempature, especially after the Industrial revolution.
Complete and utter nonsense. Quote:
Alarmists want to imply that the their conclusions about climate sensitivity are based on a century of observation, but this is not entirely true. In fact, the entire IPCC case for a high climate sensitivity to CO2 is based on just 20 years of history, from about 1978 to 1998.
www.climate-skeptic.com/2011/06/just-20-years.html Man made Co2 wasn't a major factor untill after 1945-50. When Co2 levels began to accelerate it cooled for 30 years. Causing alarmists to claim it was mam made Global Cooling.

So clearly your claims that "the rise of CO2 in the air has gone right on along with the rise in global tempature, especially after the Industrial revolution" are simply false. Also of note is that it has not warmed for 16 years despite rising Co2.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
John  Wilder
# John Wilder 10-31-2012 10:17
Nicely done Amirlach
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
John  Wilder
# John Wilder 10-26-2012 16:39
Hey Doctor
Actually it has not been proven at all that CO2 causes warming. It is a THEORY based on very flawed computer modeling.

I stand by my statements that it could be man caused warming but it has nothing to do with CO2. We have a lot more people who give off heat, more industrial operations that give off heat. We have over 5,000 jets in the air at any one time over this country alone with exhaust gasses of 1,800 degrees.

According to the ice corp data we have had much higher temps and much lower temps thoughout our history.

CO2 does not rise into the atmosphere, it is a heavier than air gas so unless you are prepared to do away with the Law of Gravity, CO2 can't be the causitive agent of warming
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.


Security code
Refresh