Global warming

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search

The term global warming is used to define periods of continual warming of Earth's climate. It is derived from paleoclimatology data, computer climate models and other data sets that reveal average temperatures of the atmosphere, land and oceans. Direct temperature measurement since 1960 has shown that within the last ten years a record warming period has occurred. [1] The conclusion of mainstream scientists have more specifically labeled this warming anthropogenic, or human induced by way of an increase in the concentrated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Government backed institutions such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [2], National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) [3] or Climatic Research Unit (CRU) [4] support and conduct research that produces overstatements of statistical projections interpreting the data with a presupposed cause and effect. [5]


The view of anthropogenic warming rather then natural is at the crux of the debate. It has been accepted on such a scale that politicians and governments are implementing policies around the concept. What is concluded, largely without consideration for debate or other sets of natural phenomenon[6], is the cause of carbon dioxide produced by humans is the only effect causing warming.

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory predicts future warming effects on the planet through climate models that bring about an Earth fundamentally different from the one we currently know. [7] Based upon IPCC assessments and other climatology institutions recommendations considering the cause and effect unequivocal coal, oil and natural gas industries are specifically targeted as culprits of this approaching devastation.

Scientists Speak Out

Mainstream science, or the pro anthropogenic side of the debate continues a stranglehold on the scientific process regarding global warming. The trend that there is no worthy scientific alternative to the theory of anthropogenic global warming is dispelled through dissenting qualified and competent scientists speaking out against the so-called scientific monopoly. [8] [9] [10] [11]

The green industry

The Financial Times launched an investigation that found widespread failings surrounding the emerging market of paying money to buy credits which then offset the carbon dioxide a person has emitted. What has been found is that people are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place while others receive big profits from carbon trading with very little expense.

The Financial Times investigation found [12] [13] [14]:

  • Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
  • Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
  • Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
  • A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
  • Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

Data falsification


And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it’s a crime against mankind.

Indeed, miners of the CRU folder have unearthed dozens of email threads and supporting documents revealing much to loathe about this cadre of hucksters and their vile intentions. This veritable goldmine has given us tales ranging from evidence destruction to spitting on the Freedom of Information Act on both sides of the Atlantic. But the now irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may just be the most important strike in human history.

Advocates of the global governance/financial redistribution sought by the United Nations at Copenhagen in two weeks and the expanded domestic governance/financial redistribution sought by Liberal politicians both substantiate their drastic proposals with the pending climate emergency predicted in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Kyoto, Waxman-Markey, Kerry-Boxer, EPA regulation of the very substances of life – all bad policy concepts enabled solely by IPCC reports. And the IPCC, in turn, bases those reports largely on the data and charts provided by the research scientists at CRU – largely from tree ring data -- who just happen to be editors and lead authors of that same U.N. panel.


Bottom line: CRU’s evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such -- all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be re-examined. [15]

Scientific arbitrary inconsistency

In 1883 at the National Fisheries Exhibition[16], Thomas Huxley mad the claim that codfish were not in danger of over-fishing (contrary to the concerns of cod fishermen at the time) and that the "natural check" for this situation would be that the weaker cod would be caught and the stronger cod would continue. Moreover that the cod would evolve into fishing-resistant life forms. As with all Darwinian predictions, the codfish that survived were the luckiest, not the strongest. This point of view initiated what some call a disaster in the codfish industry.

Scientists also claim that antibiotic resistance is an effect of natural selection and evolution[17]. They assert that bacteria spontaneously develop this resistance in the midst of environmental pressure to do so and then pass this on to their descendants. In point of fact, the capacity to resist the antibiotics pre-existed the need because the bacteria is designed to respond this way.

The above discussions are necessary as a springboard to point out the arbitrary inconsistency in scientific thought concerning the perceived increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. If the above assertions are true, and the codfish are expected to naturally evolve stronger forms, the bacteria are naturally able to evolve stronger, more resistant forms, then it follows that humans and all other living systems should be able to naturally adapt to increases in carbon dioxide levels. In fact, if the evolutionary community truly believed their own narrative about evolutionary adaptation, what we should be hearing from the scientific and political community is the same message of Thomas Huxley: "don't worry about it, humans will adapt". This arbitrary inconsistency is borne on the ability to fear-monger humans into actions, such as relinquishing liberties or exacting a monetary tax. After all, codfish and bacteria do not respond to fear or pay taxes.

On a larger note, topping the list of the world's worst offenders[18] in global warming and environmental damage are China, Unites States, Russia, India and Japan. Only one of these countries, the United States, provides the freedom of speech and political action necessary to affect change. In fact, of the top 20 topmost offenders, only the United States has any significant voice in the matter because its people actively exercise freedom of speech in effective ways. The other countries are comparatively apathetic. It is clear that governmental and cultural constraints are a primary factor in determining which countries take the brunt of pressure and which countries "skate". We rarely (if at all) hear about sanctions or consequences against India, China or Germany for their contribution to global warming. A casual examination of the internet reveals that the United States is considered the worst, if not only offender in this regard.


Climategate is the name for a massive scandal which engulfed the scientific community, particularly the top scientists behind the Global Warming movement. Many of these scientists were also the clique behind the "multiproxy" radiometric dating methods involving tree-ring dating (Dendrochronology), ice core dating, and coral dating. As a result, many of the emails are relevant to the radiometric dating arguments used by evolutionists today. See Climategate emails for quotes from the emails.

Propoganda and Media


The 21 year old Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC is the leading body establishing assessments on climate science and global weather patterns. It was created by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). There have been four assessments published by the IPCC, the first in 1990 then in 1995, 2001 and 2007. [19]

The IPCC in 2007 states [20]:

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995–2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960–2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates. {2.3, 7.3}

Since the 2007 IPCC report was released, significant scrutiny has overwhelmed the political body. So much so that scientists involved are either saying the process needs a complete overhaul[21] or that the process itself is completely broken and is a lost cause.[22]

An Inconvenient Truth

Among the most popular publications advocating global warming is politician Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, directed by Davis Guggenheim. [23] The film was highly acclaimed and received an Academy Award. Gore claims that global warming is very real and is human-caused. He has been both praised and criticized for his work.

A British judge has ruled that if a British public school shows this film to children, they are required to provide additional information as to eleven separate falsehoods in the film that are promoted as fact[24]. Albert Gore has openly stated that the film "exaggerates" but that this type of exaggeration is necessary to call people to action[25]. This has been interpreted by many as the common practice of a salesperson, not a scientist.

Albert Gore started a business for and makes significant revenue from selling "carbon credits"[26]. The "carbon credit" is purchased and the proceeds are ostensibly applied to "green" causes such as planting trees. The basic premise is that if a company or individual is having a more significant impact on the environment through carbon emissions, buying carbon credits will offset this impact. Critics of this approach have likened it to the former practice of the Catholic Church in selling "indulgences"[27][28]. That is, a person was allowed to commit or continue in certain sins if they paid the church a certain amount for the privilege. Gore himself has called global warming a "religious" question.

Albert Gore has also been criticized for owning a home that itself consumes more energy in one year that twenty standard family homes[29][30], and that he jets-about in a private plane that essentially dumps more carbon into the environment in one year than several families could do in a lifetime. Critics point out that it is typical for politicians to be the worst offenders in the areas that they tell the public to avoid[31].

The Great Global Warming Swindle

There is a counter-documentary entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle. [32] The documentary argues against prominent scientific views on global warming. It was broadcast on March 8, 2007, on Channel 4 in the UK. This is a great overview of the history and impact of the politics in today's culture.


Creationist Publications


  1. IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.] By Dr. Thomas Stocker of Switzerland and Dr. Dahe Qin of China
  2. IPCC
  3. NASA - Home By Nasa
  4. [1]
  5. New scientific data on global temperatures By Patrick Michaels at ICCC
  6. The Great Global Warming Blunder: Roy Spencer on the True Role of Clouds in the Climate Debate By NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer
  7. How Good are Computer Climate Models at Prediction? A Berkeley Lab Researcher Tests Their Predictions
  8. [2]
  9. [3]
  10. [4]
  11. [5]
  12. [6]
  13. [7]
  14. [8]
  15. CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered By Marc Sheppard; November 25, 2009
  19. Publications and Data Reports By IPCC
  20. [9] A report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - IPCC Summary for Policymakers
  21. Fix the IPCC process By Ross McKitrick. Financial Post Staff. August 27, 2010 – 7:20 pm
  22. Dump the IPCC Process, It Cannot Be Fixed August 30th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
  23. An Inconvenient Truth
  32. [10]

External links