MC physician decries warming ‘hoax’
Yates Sealander
Guest Columnist
Published: January 7, 2010
Updated: January 9, 2010
(The Copenhagen Global Warming Conference) is over and, thankfully, what a bust (except for a huge carbon footprint)! Even the (mainstream media) couldn’t spin a win out of this non-event!
My question to you true believers out there is this: How much new data or how much falsified data will it take to shake your faith, take off the blinders and open your minds to even the remote possibility of several less “fatal” alternative climate scenarios such as natural (non man-made) fluctuations or that dire predictions of global catastrophe and our ability to avoid it may be exaggerated? Does it not even bother you why your leaders changed the theme from Global Warming to Climate Change? Did it make you question for even a second?
This really is the perfect example of liberalism vs. conservatism in that liberals tend to see what they want to believe vs. conservatives who generally believe what they see. I believed the planet was warming in the 90s; I just was unsure why it was happening, skeptical of a significant man-made contribution.
However, I also believed what I saw when a decade of cooling followed, but global warming believers didn’t want to see it so they didn’t. Nothing in their almighty computer models predicted this, yet we are to believe their gloom-and-doom scenarios 25-50 years out.
Al Gore’s hurricanes didn’t happen but no matter. The artic ice has always fluctuated and the north polar ice may be declining,
But the Antarctic ice is increasing and virtually unreported. Accurate data appear to indicate that 1920 to 1940 was warmer than now without global Armageddon nor increased carbon dioxide levels. These same computer “climatologists” predicted a coming Ice Age as recently as 1975, also because of man’s activities and CO2.
Do you ask about the significance of the Medieval Warm Period? Believers, dear believers, please tell me these facts and unpredicted events make you scratch your heads just a little. If not, please tell us Deniers what kind of data will it take for you to jump off the “Gorewagon” or at least debate the issue. It is clearly not “settled science.” “Climategate” alone has to suggest this to the intellectually honest.
Global warming/climate change advocates are part of what will undoubtedly be known as the greatest hoax in modern times and Al Gore as the 21st century’s greatest snake oil salesman. Its demise will be barely mentioned in the (mainstream media), just like the global cooling of the 70s. Note it and remember why and who you trusted and believed and learn the lesson. Take your principled stand but keep your eyes and mind open and don’t fall for the next predicted end of the world so easily.
Believe it or not, I am attempting primarily to speak to the young in high school and college who are the most passionate yet impressionable and easily led astray. Remember now how confident you feel about your convictions and why you believe in global warming and then recall how you feel when you finally figure out that you saw what you wanted to believe rather than believing your eyes and realizing that we are to be good stewards of the planet and that, yes, quite naturally actually, the climate changes and always will.
(Guest columnist Yates Sealander is a Madison County physician. He lives in Graves Mill. Contact him via e-mail at .)
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
to “never surprised”... if you stand behind your comments then sign your name and I’ll be glad to post a response to you personally. Attacking the messenger, insults and anonymity are hardly the tools of civil rational conversation. Yates Sealander
Mr Fairchild,
I am a man of faith and you sort of make my point for me in that faith is what this is all about for the “warmists”. Global Warming is as close to a religious following as any issue out there right now. Believing questionable data or ignoring any contrary evidence is the very definition of a faith based movement. Is all evidence to the contrary not “science” just because you don’t agree with it? Just for the sake of civil discourse,consider what you will label this “cause” when it is disproven and yet you still believe. Thanks for the comments. Yates Sealander
Dr. Sealander,
I find it poor logic to state that the “Conservative” philosophy of “generally believing what they see” (although I heartily disagree with your opinion of pandemic Conservative credulity) is somehow a superior line of reasoning. Normally the “I’ll believe it when I see it” stance is simply silly, but in a doctor, it really is unpardonable.
After all, who should know better than a doctor the potent risks of invisible yet terribly menacing disease. Illnesses in their insidious stages are often imperceptible; that does not mean they do not exist. We may not always be able to see cancer, HIV, AIDS, and a multitude of other biological threats, but that does not mean that millions of people are not made casualties by them every year.
I would also imagine that, as a man of faith, your stalwart “seeing is believing” attitude might present one or two problems along the way. After all, isn’t faith the very antithesis of that credo? Believing in that which you cannot see. In that which you have no tangible evidence to support.
Thankfully, in the case of climate change, we do have substantiated, credible, and highly perceivable evidence in which we may place our trust, much of which is delineated in Ms. Squire’s recent article. If you haven’t already, I highly recommend that you avail yourself of it.
All the best,
R.E. Fairchild
I’m glad an ever larger number of men of science are waking up and debunking the “manmade global warming” hoax. It is possibly one of the biggest scams in the history of science, mainly because of its impact and influence on globalwide economy.
The facts are simply these:
1. Mathematical models (and computational models derived from them)used by Al Gore et al to predict the far future climate couldn’t predict the slight warming of the last decades. However we are led to believe they can forecast climate changes 100 years from now.
2. From 2002 to 2007 there was no observed temperature variation detected on satellite based measurements. As a matter of fact, in 2008 relative to 2007, the temperatures fell sharply worldwide 0.65 ºC.
3. The ice sheet in Antarctica is 17% larger than it was in 1979.
4. The ice sheet in the Arctic has slighly declined since 1979 but is within the limits observed in the past decades.
5. Ground stations used to measure temperatures in hundreds of locations are in extremely bad conditions to make a rigorous scientific measurement of temperature. Dozens of them are influenced by the urban “heat island effect”.
6. We use the data from these “bad stations” and compare them to even worse data gathered in the 19th century and beginning of 20th century by ground stations that weren’t designed to measure temperatures scientifically to a tenth of a degree.
7. Data used to estimate temperatures in the the last thousand or million years is “proxy” data. It’s just bad science trying to accurately and honestly estimate global wide climate patterns or temperatures in the last few thousand years on these “proxy” data.
8. The most important factor in global warming or cooling is the Sun power output.
9. The most important greenhouse gas is water vapour and not carbon dioxide (I bet you didn’t know that).
10. Some mathematical models used to plot temperature graphs are just plain wrong or dishonest. Some models output always the same function pattern irrespective of input. One of those ridiculous models is the model used to plot the hockey stick graph.
11. Global warming or global cooling are natural variations of Earth’s climate. Such variation have always happened throughout history and some examples of it are the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.
First, let me start by saying how disheartening it is to see a supposed man of science (Dr. Sealander is a physician after all) attempt to shoot holes through verified science that has been substantiated by nearly every reputable climate scientist on earth.
That said, let’s get into some of the nuts and bolts of the good Dr.‘s rant on the “hoax” of Climate Change.
1. - This issue of syntax. Climate Change vs. Global Warming. Does it really matter what we call it, Doc? I would prefer just as much a global conference on “How We Humans are Ruining the Earth and What We Can Do About It.“ Call it what you want, but don’t get caught up in what we call the facts that the Earth’s climate is changing and we are playing a role in it - that much is not up for debate.
Here are a few facts courtesy of the EPA, which I’m sure you think should be nixed as a federal agency:
“According to NOAA and NASA data, The Earth’s average surface temperature increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF in the last 100 years. The eight warmest years on record (since 1850) have all occurred since 1998, with the warmest being 2005. Most of the warming in recent decades is very likely the result of human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also changing such as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level.“
2. - This notion of this being a partisan issue. The Climate Change debate is a partisan issue insomuch that conservatives refuse to turn off FOX News for long enough to actually admit the fact that we are contributing to the change in our climate. This should not fall along party lines. Common sense can rule the day - if there is still such a thing as common sense in a party that counts Rush Limbaugh and Sara Palin as its leaders.
I’ve often used this example:
If you put a running moped in the middle of John Paul Jones arena, will the fumes from that moped change the air inside the arena? YES. Will it be a noticeable change at first? Probably not. But we have a small engine that’s burning fossil fuels pumping exhaust into a closed environment. Over considerable time, the air temperature will presumably rise a fraction of a degree and the air inside the arena will become polluted. Now, change the scale to our Earth’s atmosphere and a billion cars, factories, etc. emitting carbon dioxide. Do you see where I’m going? There is no question we are impacting our environment. The only question is - what will the effects be?
3. - “But the Antarctic ice is increasing and virtually unreported.“ Yeah. I guess that’s why there’s an iceberg the size of Manhattan floating towards New Zealand as we speak.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6554023/Giant-iceberg-spotted-off-Australia.html
4. - Your plea “to the young in high school and college who are the most passionate yet impressionable and easily led astray.“
I sincerely hope you were not among the throngs of imbecilic conservatives who cried out “Indoctrination!“ when our own president spoke to the youth of America about what they can do to make their lives and our country better. Surely not, Doc. For a doctor to try and poke holes in science is beyond incomprehensible to me. I shudder to think what kind of practice you run and what parts of verified scientific research you cast off as nonsense to fit into your own worldview.
Tell me Doc, who is the real snake oil salesman here?
This was just a ploy for other countries to try to get money out of china and America. China put their foot down, they have balls. The US president is a joke.
Dr. Yates - a delightful read!! I applaud your stance.
Sadly, there are no comments yet, so I’m supplying one:
I don’t feel myself a ‘denier’ (a vile term), or even quite a ‘skeptic’.
If real science (experimentation et. al) finds a demonstrable link between CO2 & T, I’ll stand behind it, but then be a mere cautious skeptic if it’s anything more than 0.2C.
Also - just out (I haven’t yet found the actual Journal article, but I will)
... it actually mirrors a concern I had ...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/08/the-ozone-hole-did-it.aspx
enjoy
Advertisement