March 28, 2009

The Politics of Global Warming


From the beginning, I have had personal reasons to believe that Global Warming was politics and not real science.


While researching other things on the internet, occasions to read about Global Warming set in my mind that science actually undermines the lie of Global Warming.  The founder of the Weather Channel published an article examining the science behind historical temperature trends.[1]  Comparison of carbon dioxide charts with the temperature showed no correlation.  Although correlation can be seen clearly in graphs, as a mathematical analysis tool it can detect patterns of relationship even in the presence of noise that would obscure its visibility.  Both variables certainly varied, but not in the same manner.  Comparison with charts of solar activity however, demonstrated visibly, unobscured by any noise, that recent warmer weather correlated to a normal variation in an 11-year solar cycle.  A physicist in the military came out in support of the same scientific conclusion.  His later retraction of the same, without explanation, smells of submission to political pressure.  Could it be a coincidence that the Democrats had just gained control of Congress?  Even scientists on the side of Global Warming have had their reservations.  Predictions of ocean rises in the hundreds of feet failed in their minds on further thought.  Arctic Ice, whose melting would cause such a catastrophe, on further reflection could only contribute 4% of their volume and mass to such a rise.  Because water only expands 4% on freezing, floating ice only protrudes above the ocean by this amount.  After they thought on these things they revised their ocean rise predictions to 14 inches.  Normal tides represent a bigger change than this.  The period immediately following September 11, 2001 allowed a brief opportunity for another observation.  While almost all of America’s airlines were grounded, the temperature rose a small but perceptible amount.  The immediate conclusion was that particulate emissions by the jets were adding a cooling effect to the average world temperature, whose temporary absence allowed the temperature to rise a small amount.  They concluded that some of their fraction of a degree of Global Warming was due to the reduced particulate emissions that environmental regulations had produced in automobiles over the years.  Gee, what a thought!  I think further that it is possible that mankind’s long standing production of particulate emissions by burning wood and then coal for heat and cooking created a colder baseline temperature by which the newer and cleaner, and therefore warmer, world is being compared.  In this same line, a scientific documentary I viewed expounded how in premodern times routine small wildfires benefited forests by clearing undergrowth without damaging the forest itself.  This would spare mankind’s influence as an argument against wood smoke being a normal part of our ecological system.  I imagine that environmentalists would swallow hard if it were suggested that we burn wood again to save the planet.  From a mathematical point of view, the Stefan-Boltzmann law of Thermodynamics seems most to discredit global warming.  It states that “the total radiant-heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.”[2]  This certifies that the average temperature of the Earth is self-regulating.  A small drop in temperature causes a sharp drop in energy emitted into space from the earth, and likewise a small increase in temperature causes a sharp increase in energy emitted into space from the earth.  You can sleep now, at least on this subject, but perhaps not on the politics.


What are the politics?  First, scientific research costs millions and billions of dollars.  It is casually obvious that politics is involved in anything costing that much money whether it comes from the government or a private source in spite of protestations of objectivity.  Many parties have many different, related, unrelated, and even conflicting motives for an agenda of this scope and magnitude.  Because Global Warming was at first a pretext for radical environmental measures, I think energy dependency on those hate our country has married environmentalism with the oil business.  It is no wonder that one of Global Warming’s most outspoken advocates is both an ardent environmentalist and one with close ties to Occidental Petroleum.  Al Gore also conveniently gets $100,000 for each speech he is hired to give on the subject.  I am certain this is welcome income for someone recently closed out of an income in politics itself.  Globalists, too, would favor any measure requiring international cooperation in order to continue to install global political infrastructure.  It also becomes convenient politically as an explanation for the bizarre weather we have had since the mid-1990’s.  I had long believed myself that at least some of the weather was man-made somehow.  I have also long been angered at the blaming of God and His people for weather He did not cause.  I heard talk of things people intended to do in this line, saw the results, and even found documentation of their interest in such things.  More recently, I have found reason to believe other factors are also behind this weather.  Some with academic credentials commented on the internet that they observed that hot spots on the earth preceded every natural disaster.  They said:


We arrived at the association of natural disasters and local hot spots by an astute observation by one of the team members. The chaotic popping up of hot spots around the country looked spurious, until one person asked at the 93-94 hotspot in Iowa: "When were the floods in Iowa?" This led to extensive searches of geographic locations and natural disasters, and it cascaded into ways to explain many hotspots. Mostly, these could be found in the 93-99 period when Clinton was in government.[3],[4]


I set my mind also, to verify this observation if at all possible.  Articles, written around August 5, 2008, about an event in California sparked my attention.  A month and a half before that time, a mysterious hot spot occurred in Ventura County.  The ground temperature rose to 812°F and somehow failed to cause a fire.[5],[6]  Geologists attributed the most likely cause to nearness of magma to the surface of the earth.  You might ask how hot spots could drive the weather.  I will try to briefly explain.  Another law of physics, the Law of Entropy, says that thermal systems work to redistribute heat evenly.  Uneven heat distribution represents potential energy that must be expended by convection or radiation in order to satisfy this law.  In meteorological terms, convection is the weather with all its effects.  Hot spots would have a bigger effect on the weather if they added a wildfire to their power.  Wildfire by arson would also affect the weather, perhaps adding to the earth’s meteorological troubles.  As for the cause of hot spots, the Bible gives a clue.  Jesus stated that earthquakes would mark the beginning of end-times generally.  Students of history know that a statistical increase in the incidence of earthquakes began in 1946.  Knowing this to be significant biblically and that the deployment of the atomic bomb, also significant biblically, in the same time frame links these events causally.  It is likely that renewed nuclear testing by France, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and others has fractured the earth to create these hot spots.  When I was younger, I considered the signing of nuclear test ban treaties to be a sign of political weakness.  Now, I think that the powers of this world were acting on observations of how dangerous their new weapons were, even just to test.  Atmospheric testing, at least in America, is done on platforms hundreds of feet high to reduce the weapons’ pounding effect on the ground.  Underground testing, tempting for reasons of secrecy, seem to be the most geologically dangerous of all.  Indeed, there seem to be clues that nations discover by accident that underwater testing creates tsunamis; only to remain silent and hope others do not discover their blunder.  Yet with continuing demonstrations of humankind’s belligerence, I can see no way that good nations can put these weapons away, now that they have been discovered.


That the perpetrators of this hoax have the masses running after a lie is what angers me the most.  Some may argue the expediency of their concerns, but lies have consequences.  Solutions arising from the lie will be limited to only those that do not expose it.  In particular consider the following scripture.


And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. (Rev 6:6)


This scripture could refer to difficult political choices pertaining to dividing agricultural resources between food and energy production, the wheat and barley being allocated to food, and oil and wine to biofuels.  A radical environmentalist energy policy excluding undesirable but plentiful energy sources such as coal could produce such a dilemma.


Who is in charge of this circus?  See Power Rules




[1] John Coleman, February 21, 2008 – “Comments on Global Warming,” as presented in an article from, archived file

[2] Britannica Encyclopedia 2002 – article “Stefan-Boltzmann Law”

[3] Iowa State University Website, 2005 – “InfoVis 2005 Contest:  Boom and Bust of Technology Companies at the Turn of the 21st Century,”, archived article

[4] The word hotspot in this citation has no clear antecedent.  As such, I interpreted it in context of its association with natural disaster as if the subject were an accidental discovery interjected out of context to the topic of the article.

[5] Los Angeles Times, August 5, 2008 – “Ventura County hot spot puzzles experts,, archived article

[6] Ventura County Star, August 6, 2008 – “Scientists puzzle over source of county hot spots”, archived article