Skip to content

Global Warming: Exposing the Far Left’s Lies, Part 2

November 3, 2009


Editor’s Note: If you have not read Part 1 of this 5-part series you are strongly encouraged to do so.

As I wrote in my reply to Wayne’s question in Part I of this series, in this installment, I’m going to describe the way in which I feel we should begin our argument when addressing the general public about the AGW hoax, but before I start, we need to go just a bit more deeply into the history of climate change itself.

In the following graph, we can see all the way back to the Precambrian era, some 4.5 billion years ago. During this period we can see that the earth went through periods of extreme cold, when the temperature averages per year were as low as 10°C (50°F) and through periods of extreme warmth when the temperature averages per year were 25°C (77°F). The difference between those extremes, was far bigger than the difference between the extremes of the last 1000 years, from the medieval warm period to the little ice age. In fact our mean average during the last 1000 years, has even been below the mean average of 17°C (62.6°F) for the time period going back to the earliest days of our planet.


Click image for larger version.

Putting the two in perspective, we can clearly see that our current relatively warm temperatures are well below the temperatures of the medieval warm period, during which all living things thrived, and which were even further below the temperatures during the days of the dinosaurs. In other words, at the present time we’re not very warm at all!

All of this brings us back to my belief that the best way to start our pitch, is to simply show the original graph of the last thousand years:


After which we point to the medieval warm period, during which ALL living things flourished in temperatures roughly 3.5°C (5.4°F) warmer than we are today, after which we point to the far right side of the graph, and ask the simple question:


From that point in the presentation, we should lay out the three basic elements of the AGW hoax:

1. That there really IS no crisis in the first place,
2. That WARMING is beneficial, and that extreme COOLING is the only thing that we need be concerned about, and
3. That increasing CO2 levels have virtually no meaningful effect on changing temperatures in the first place.

From that point, a brief explanation of the 3rd point above is necessary, before going off into such arguments as the economic costs versus the insignificant benefits to which huge reductions in hydrocarbon emissions can possibly lead. It’s necessary to do this for the simple reason that the entire AGW hoax, is based on the absurd theory that increasing CO2 levels are the primary cause of the recent warming, when they’re not even a significant one. And this in fact, is also simple and quick to demonstrate.

The CO2 myth can be explained from a number of different starting points, but I think the best way to begin is by showing the following graph or one very similar.


The first thing we see in the graph above, is that while the rate of rise in arctic air temperatures from 1975 to 2000 runs roughly parallel to the rate of increase in our use of hydrocarbons for the same period, during the preceding period from 1940 to 1975, they run in exactly the opposite way. The second thing we see, is that the rate of rise during the longer period from 1880 to 1940, which goes up at just about the same rate as the rise from 1975 to 2000, has virtually no similarity at all to the rate of increase in our use of hydrocarbons for THAT same period.

I’d then point out 2 more things in order to bury the CO2 myth for good. The first is to point out are that the 200 years of warming that led to the peak of the medieval warm period, clearly had nothing to do with rising levels of CO2, because man had hardly even begun to use hydrocarbon based fuels, and second, that during the same period from roughly 1880 to 2000 while the earth was warming, the temperatures on Mars and the moons of Jupiter, were going up at virtually the same rate as the earth’s, and they CLEARLY had nothing to do with the use of hydrocarbon based fuels. This of course leads us to the obvious conclusion, which is demonstrated by the big swiggly RED line in the graph above representing the changing rate of SOLAR ACTIVITY which almost perfectly parallels the entire rise in arctic air temperature, to the closing line of part one of our presentation:


In Part III we’ll go into some of the other issues closely related to climate change, such as rising sea levels, shrinking ice packs, and of course, those poor suffering polar bears.

  1. John Davidson permalink
    November 3, 2009 1:16 pm

    Over the past several years, certain people have declared doomsday and have suddenly become famous quickly, but surrepticious when their prophecy never takes place, but they pocketed lots of money perpetrating the scheme.

    Al Gore should be ashamed for taking the first dollar supporting this attempt to bring about a new scare tactic to alarm those who choose to believe in this new hoax.

    Most of us exale CO2; some have a methane smell, though.

    • F. Swemson permalink
      November 3, 2009 1:26 pm


      If you’re implying that the stench of Gores dishonesty is comparable to RUMINANT emissions, I must wholeheartedly concur

      Well said sir !

      • John Davidson permalink
        November 3, 2009 1:35 pm

        I believe the word I should have used is defication in the four letter form and excreted from a large four legged farm animal with horns.

  2. November 3, 2009 2:18 pm

    Well put,

    I would loved to see Gore’s movie debunked point by point.

    Although there is still something to be said for keeping the earth clean.

    • Swemson permalink
      November 3, 2009 2:31 pm


      Stay tuned for Part 3, and you will…

      BTW: Nobody here, least of all I, denies the seriousness of the pollution problem, however we’re only talking about exposing the lies about AGW in this series…

  3. Wayne permalink
    November 3, 2009 2:50 pm

    There may be some good news here from the Pew Research Center finding that fewer Americans see global warming as a serious problem— 35% today compared with 44% a year ago. Today 57% see solid evidence of global warming compared to 71% a year ago.

    If more see All Gore as a liar and AGW as a hoax, there is as you say, better evidence that it is sun spot activity which is responsible for global warming or climate change. We can be optimistic that people are finally awakening to the disaster that the Obama administration is becoming.

  4. Swemson permalink
    November 3, 2009 7:02 pm


    I just received this (Tuesday evening 11.03.09) from SPPI:

    International negotiators lost one of the key elements to a successful deal on global warming today after Democratic leaders in the US Congress ruled out passing a climate change law before 2010. In the latest obstacle on the road to the UN summit in Copenhagen next month, Senate leaders ordered a five-week pause to review the costs of the legislation. In a move to stem the Republican protest, and quieten Democrat critics, the Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, said he would ask the Environmental Protection Agency to spend five weeks reviewing the potential costs of the bill.
    By: Suzanne Goldenberg – The Guardian, 3 November 2009

  5. M. C. Ridge permalink
    November 4, 2009 6:39 am

    I would like to read Part I, but you didn’t provide a link and searching your archives didn’t turn up one. Can you provide one?

    • November 4, 2009 7:02 am

      I stuck a link to part 1 at the top of the article. But here it is:

  6. Samuel permalink
    November 4, 2009 11:15 am

    Good job Swemson.

    I don’t know if you saw this article a few weeks ago, sorry I don’t have the link, but you shouldn’t have trouble finding it if you like. Here is part of it that I’ve cut and pasted from another email.

    “Scientists aren’t sure when the polar bear diverged from its closest cousin, the brown bear. But Dick Harington, a paleontologist at the Canadian Museum of Nature, says an ancient polar bear jaw bone found in Norway 19 months ago suggests they were already a distinct species 110,000 to 130,000 years ago.

    This means polar bears would have survived during a period when temperatures were much warmer than today, says Dr. Harington, who recently published a paper on the evolution of northern marine mammals in the journal Ecological Applications.

    But he notes that modern polar bears have to cope with hunters and pollution as well as rising temperatures and melting ice. ”

    What I found funny was that they had to tack on that last paragraph to be sure that sympathy for polar bears wasn’t impugned.

    The listing of polar bears because of fear of global warming is completely bogus regardless if ice caps melt or not. A species will adapt to the available habitat, and saving them from hunters (for example) only massages human’s feelings. Biological reality is that the polar bear saved from hunting today, making us feel better, will die of starvation or other habitat factors tomorrow, but out of sight out of mind.

    The Fish and Wildlife Service does not recognize habitat change as a population adjustment, and they continue to buy off on global warming as can be seen in their recent EA for bald and golden eagles:

    Page 100 “Global climate change could raise sea level, perhaps by as much as one meter by the end of this century by expanding ocean water, melting mountain glacier, and causing ice sheets to melt or slide into the oceans. Such a rise would inundate coastal lowlands and impact bald eagles nest locations associated with them.”

    Page 102 “Because the sea-level rise is expected to take place gradually, over a span of years, bald eagles will have time to relocate. However, because impacts will be occurring to human property in the same areas, the Service may see an increase in the requests and need for permits related to human and eagle safety in these areas…Re-evaluation and potential adjustments of the permit thresholds and permit conditions will minimize the cumulative effects of the permit and climate change in coastal areas.”

    More evidence that science takes the back seat to politics and emotions.


    • Swemson permalink
      November 7, 2009 10:06 am


      The only REAL problem polar bears had was hunters, but their population has been growing steadily for the last 40 years, and they’re making a strong comeback right now.

      As for sea level, they’re been rising at a rate of 7 inches per century for the last 150 years. When they tell people that they could rise by 1 meter, they’re just trying to whip up a panic… And they’ve been rather effective at that…

      The bottom line is that there’s nothing to be afraid of. The earth has been around for something like 4.5 billion years, and has survived REAL climate changes many times. In the last thousand years, the earth has reached temperatures of roughly 4° above and 4° below the mean average. Previously, it reached temperatures of roughly 8° above and 7° below the mean average. The warming period ended in 1998, and we’ve been cooling steadily cooling since then. At the warmest point in this latest climate crisis, we never got higher than 1° the mean…

      Considering what mother nature has had to deal with over the last 4.5 billion years, I think she’ll survive our SUV’s just fine… SO let’s get back to working on the REAL problem… Pollution !

      This entire AGW movement is a hoax.

      • John Davidson permalink
        November 7, 2009 10:30 am

        Ahhah! Another “A” group to add to my list of siditious ones. Thanks, Swemson.

  7. Samuel permalink
    November 7, 2009 6:53 pm

    Hi Swemson,

    Why do you say; “The only REAL problem polar bears had was hunters, but their population has been growing steadily for the last 40 years, and they’re making a strong comeback right now.”?

    They haven’t even been able to do a complete census, until recent years, I doubt hunters were a real problem 40 years ago, since no one knew how many there were, and the population is large now. The real problem is people finding problems that don’t exist to get the public concerned as to be able to raise money on that concern.

    And really, does the world need 40 thousand polar bears, or is 30 thousand enough, who knows? They have to adjust to the available habitat like everything else.


  8. F. Swemson permalink
    November 7, 2009 7:26 pm


    What I meant was that Global Warming was in no way responsible for the polar bear population shrinking down to the 5,000 that was reported… Indeed warming makes the polar Bear population grow, not shrink…

    The figures I’ve read say that that their number increased 500% from 5,000 to 25,000

    Other reports that I’ve read say that they’ve grown at least 2 to 4 times as many as there were, to as much as 10 times as many…

    During the little ice age, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the herd shrank, and that, when combined with hunting, that was what made the population get so small… When it reached its low of 5,000, I assume that it was low enough to put some restrictions on hunting, and that, when added to the warming that continued for so long, is why the population has grown so rapidly in recent years…

    But once again, my main point here is that Gore is lying as usual, when he says global warming is killing off the polar bears…

    It just isn’t true…… Gore is a LIAR !

    • Samuel permalink
      November 7, 2009 7:36 pm

      Hi Swemson,

      We agree, and about Gore too. What a strange world that Madoff runs a scam and goes to prison, Gore runs a scam and gets a Nobel Prize.


      • F. Swemson permalink
        November 7, 2009 7:44 pm

        That’s for sure… !


  1. Global Warming: Exposing the Far Left’s Lies, Part 3 « NewsReal Blog
  2. Global Warming: Exposing the Far Left’s Lies, Part 4 « NewsReal Blog
  3. The Hoax is Finally Exposed « NewsReal Blog

Comments are closed.