Last year, a documentary was made titled, “The Great Global Warming Swindle” which seemed to be a direct rebuttal to Al Gore’s film “An Inconvinient Truth”. I have just seen that documenary and quite simply, it is a load of CRAP!
There are several things blatantly wrong with it.
- The film asserts, without any actual evidence, that the Medieval Warm Period was indeed warmer than today. For the explanation of that assumption and its refutation, go here: https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/debunking-the-mwp-myth/
- The film nowhere mentions the planet Venus, yet it is there that the power of the greenhouse effect, which the film seems to deny, becomes most obvious. Venus, on both its day and night sides, is far hotter than the day side of Mercury, which is much closer to the Sun! Although the clouds of Venus shield the planet’s surface from most of the sunlight, the atmosphere, which is mostly carbon dioxide (CO2), traps the little heat that gets through.
- The film indicates that there was one obscure scientist that claimed that the greenhouse gases could cause global warming in the 1970s and that he was ridiculed by most scientists at the time. This is simply a lie! In fact, the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperatures was understood by most scientists since the 1900s. The scientist who discovered it was world famous, even winning the 1903 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. His name was Svante Arrhenius. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect_as_cause_for_ice_ages http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=5971 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1903/arrhenius-lecture.html http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Arrhenius_pdf
- The film claims that “all the climate change models” predicted that the temperatures of the lower atmosphere would be less than the upper atmosphere and that the discovery that this was not the case falsified the models. But this is flatly contradicted by a statement in Al Gore’s book “An Inconvenient Truth”. He said, “Global warming heats the lower atmosphere but actually cools the stratosphere…” This makes sense when you realize that CO2 is heavier than the nitrogen and oxygen that make up most of the Earth’s atmosphere, and therefore would tend to be lower in the atmosphere. An increase in the proportion of CO2 would only be felt closer to the ground, not farther from it.
- The film claims that water vapor is a far more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. But that is not true, because water vapor forms clouds that actually block sunlight and thus act to cool the Earth, providing a counter to the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. By contrast, CO2 never forms clouds and thus can ONLY be a greenhouse gas.
- The film claims that the global warming movement was started by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a way of promoting nuclear power at the expense of fossil fuels. This is nonsense, because while nuclear power may not release greenhouse gases, it causes other types of pollution and has its own grave risks, plus like fossil fuels it is nonrenewable.
- The film claims that efforts to wean poor countries in Africa off fossil fuels and onto solar energy is harmful to their well-being. Never mind the fact that depending on fossil fuels would require an unlimited number of monthly payments to the big energy companies. But using solar panels, however expensive they may be at first, would only require a one-time payment. Plus, efforts to mass produce solar panels would eventually drive their costs down, if only the big energy companies would permit it. And there is an entire vast region, the Sahara Desert, where millions of solar panels could be built and maintained to supply most of Africa with energy.
Need I go on?
It is common knowledge that about five billion years from now, the Sun will use up its hydrogen fuel in its core, swell up into a red giant, destroy the inner planets, and collapse into a white dwarf. Most people assume that will be the end of the story, but perhaps not….
Six billion years from now, the remains of the Solar System passes through a nebula and the Sun’s gravity begins to pull gas onto it. Soon, the Sun acquires so much mass that it collapses further into a neutron star. Meanwhile, the planet Jupiter also gains mass from the surrounding gas. Eventually, Jupiter becomes massive enough to ignite thermonuclear reactions in its core, becoming a star. It even acquires a new planet, which I’ll call Euphoria, that is nearly as massive as Earth once was. The gravitational dance of the Sun and Jupiter causes the planets beyond Jupiter to be tossed out into interstellar space.
Ten billion years from now, Euphoria has intelligent life forms living on it, including astronomers. With Earth long since destroyed, there will be no traces of us left for them to know about. It will be as it we had never existed, and from their point of view, the Solar System as it was would probably be only a wild speculation, much like this essay.
Most people have the preception that “pagan” religions, especially those with ancient roots in polytheism, are inferior to monotheistic faiths like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Many pagan religions featured worship of the Sun or a god that was thought to control the Sun in its travels in the sky. Should we think this irrational?
- The Sun is the source of light and heat, without which we would not survive. This is self-evident. By contrast, we have no way of knowing even the existence of the God of the Abrahamic religions, let alone what He does for us.
- We see the Sun every day and we can invent rituals that are based on the movements of the Sun that make perfect sense to the followers of Sun worship. No one has seen God, at least that we have confirmed and the rituals connected to Him in the Abrahamic religions seem to have no relation to natural needs. Is it rational to believe in what cannot be seen?
- All things in the Solar System revolve around the Sun. It also has 99% of the mass of the Solar System, and science can directly access it. We cannot access God via science, and thus we’ve had constant conflict between science and religion as a result.
I would therefore suggest that Sun worship should eventually replace the Abrahamic religions if we are to renew the spirituality of the human race. Then mankind would become more firmly united and at peace and science would advance more rapidly. Imagine what our lives would be like if everyone on Earth were sun worshippers. No more arguments over dogmas or rituals made up by priests to appease a God that does not speak for himself, but appears to speak through prophets who may or may not be telling the truth. No more scriptures that are claimed to be infallible but in fact are deeply flawed. Issues of sexual behavior would have no ties to religion, making the dealing with those issues easier and more realistic. Of course, the sun also causes storms, heat stroke, and sunburns, but at least we would understand the reasons behind that, instead of wondering why our “god” was either punishing us or allowing such evil to occur to us. And we would STILL have something to center our lives around, day by day, and year by year. Many people have a natural need for such rituals for the sake of self-discipline, and we should find ways to accomidate those needs.
No child should have to endure this sort of nonsense!
13-yr-old says no to marriage in Rajasthan
JAISALMER: A 13-year-old girl is revolting against a hoary tradition that has crushed many a childhood in Rajasthan – child marriage.
Refusing to crumble under social pressure, Asu Kunwar from Sedhana village, near Pokhran, stood up to her father who was bent on marrying her off to a 40-year-old for Rs 49,000 and a gold chain.
Bhom Singh now has to return the money to his prospective son-in-law in the face of resistance from Asu, who sought police protection.
Bhom Singh struck the deal with Sawai Singh two years ago, promising to give him his daughter’s hand when she was older. He was forced to send back his prospective son-in-law after Asu put her foot down.
Soon she had won her mother over to her side, but the father, who had already taken the bride price of Rs 49,000 tried to push her into wedlock this April, saying a date had already been fixed and a Rajput had to honour his word.
Confronted by the empowered mother-daughter duo, Sawai Singh, meanwhile, reached out to the larger male-dominated community and village panchayat of Sedhana. He also went to the local police to seek their help, but they refused to intervene.
Petitioned by Sawai Singh, the village panchayat met and decided it was only fair that the man be allowed to marry the 13-year-old. Villagers then gathered around the girl’s house and tried to force her to agree to the wedding.
Seeing the community against her, Asu’s mother went to Indu Chopra, a woman official of the local women and child development department.
That’s when the official organised protection for the mother and child and warned the villagers to back off. A police force, which had till then stood as mute spectators, was then forced to step in and caution Asu’s father about the consequences of violating the ban on child marriage.
Bhom Singh, villagers said, has now borrowed money from various sources to pay back the bride price.
It’s illegal to sell babies in most parts of the world and for women to have sex for money (prostitution). Why is it acceptable in ANY society, tradition bound or not, to take money from an older man and then force your daughter to marry that man when she is still a child?! That father should be locked up, along with the prospective groom, and the girl and her mother should be honored as heros for human rights.
For any conspiracy to succeed, there are several conditions that may be required:
- The participants must be as few as possible.
- The conspiracy must be of as short a duration as possible.
- The conspiracy must be extremely secretive.
Condition 3 relies on the first two, as indicated in the proverb, “Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead.”
Thus, the commonly held 9-11 conspiracy theory that many government officials under the Bush Administration were directly involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is far less credible than the idea that a few dozen operatives of Al-Qaeda were responsible. Likewise, it is far more credible that Exxon and its operatives have been planting misleading claims about global warming in the popular press and various blogs over the past couple of decades than that thousands of scientists have been misleading people about global warming since 1896, when Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first identified the heat retaining properties of carbon dioxide (called “carbonic acid” in Arrhenius’ paper referred to below).
People make up conspiracy theories to explain what could be responsible for something they happen to dislike. The “theory” could be more properly considered a hypothesis in science. The problem comes when these people do not take the next step in the scientific method, which is to test the idea via observation or experiment. Instead, they proclaim the conspiracy theory as DOGMA and proceed to interpret all evidence according to that dogma, despite never finding any direct evidence to confirm the theory. Then they abandon all willingness to allow the claim to be disproven.
You can’t do science that way! Just because a theory claims to explain something doesn’t mean it is true. You must ultimately rule out all other possibilities before stating something questionable to be FACT.