Why I have trouble taking global warming alarmists seriously
When someone opens a conversation with a lie it’s difficult to take anything else they have to say seriously. Global warming alarmists open their arguments by lying and go on from there.
Alarmists will start their conversations by pointing out that the earth has warmed by .6 degrees in the last 120 years. Next they will show you that the earths CO2 level has risen over the same time frame. Finally they will speak of the horrific implications if temperatures continue to rise because of this. If you ask what is the cause they will point to fossil fuels being burnt.
The above shows how you can take true statements combine them together and tell a very convincing lie.
Yes Alarmists are telling the truth about the rise in temperature. What they don’t tell you is that even the research they use doesn’t say this all from mankind. Their figures show 1/3 of the increase came from the sun. That’s their numbers. So with their opener they are misleading you into thinking of the total change in the earth’s temperature as being caused by man.
Yes the alarmists are telling the truth about the rise in CO2 over the same time frame. What they don’t tell you is that while CO2 has consistently risen over the time in question, temperature has not. This is not a summer to winter decline, this involves 30 year periods of decline while CO2 was increasing. One such period of decline triggered doom and gloom scenarios of a new ice age.
The last piece of their argument, when they speak of their horrible projections of the future they never mention it has been just as warm in the past. That the warm periods, have been times of great human prosperity not tragedy. Warmer climates providing better and more predictable crop yields, ice free harbors, and reduce the death rate from the cold. (England last year had over 20,000 cold related deaths; those people can no longer be concerned about global warming).
There is considerable speculation about why this agenda is being promoted. From the political side the reasons are obvious. We are talking about new layers of governmental control and new opportunities for government corruption. Example, California has sought to outlaw the incandescent bulb. They are also talking about carbon trading schemes, a certain windfall for those politically connected enough to create the exchanges.