The global warming theory is squeezing my personal finance

by Rocket Finance

and I’m not happy about it.

Back in December, I outlined how former Vice President Al Gore is outlining his own pockets by means of the global warming hysteria. Since that time hundreds and thousands of scientists have unceremoniously exited the global warming express because it is bad science and promotes even worse public policy.

I know that it is difficult for many in our popular culture to contradict those at the forefront of the global warming hypothesis. People like Leonardo DiCaprio, Sonny Bono and Sheryl Crow just seem so hip, so cool and so well-meaning that even our politicians, those who should be our leaders, succumb to the pressure. And then if that was not enough, Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize – the award that was also bestowed on that notable peacenik, Yassar Arafat, as well as that man who solved the the Mid-East crisis, Jimmy Carter. Al Gore has also earned an Oscar from that scholarly research institute, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. I guess I’m just a little anti-establishment.

I used to believe in global warming. In fact, my 8th grade science project supposedly “demonstrated” its effects. By the time that I reached my senior year in high school, I was pretty well convinced that there was little truth to the hypothes of man-caused global warming. I took a lot of heat (no pun intended) from my classmates for questioning the theory. The theory just did not make sense – it takes a lot of faith to believe that man can change or control the weather . . . we can’t even predict it . . .

I understand that I am in the minority on this topic. In no way does that dissuade me from my position. The masses have been wrong before. I prefer to trust common sense as well as the growing number of scientists who are choosing to make public statements in opposition to the theory. Frankly, most of them seem to be more credible to speak on the topic than George Clooney. Shocking, I know.

If you are one who believes that man must act now to combat global warming, I challenge you to read the following articles. Examine the credentials of those who are writing and then see if a few cracks your faith in the truth of global warming begin to form. Our economy and your financial future depend on it.

John Coleman’s comments before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce reveal a number of historical facts such as pinpointing the moment in time where Al Gore became interested in this whole topic of global warming. Coleman is the founder of the Weather Channel and this particular speech is passionate, well-informed and credible.

Over 400 scientists dispute the claims of global warming in this U.S. Senate report.

I prefer to be on the side of this MIT professor.

Understand, I am not anti-environment. I love the outdoors and believe that we need to be good stewards of the earth that has been entrusted to our care. However, I prefer that stewardship be based on good science, not line the pockets of an elite few and keep our economy strong.

I am confident that we can successfully meet all of those challenges.

  1. 19 Responses to “The global warming theory is squeezing my personal finance”

  2. By Becky@FamilyandFinances on Jun 17, 2008 | Reply

    I’m totally with you on this. Very well-written article. :)

    I think it’s important to realize that global warming doesn’t have to be real in order for us to want to be better stewards of Earth. I’ve always thought the global warming theory sounded a little ridiculous, but that hasn’t stopped me from trying to live a greener life.

  3. By rocketc on Jun 17, 2008 | Reply

    Yes. Part of the problem with the current environmental trend is that they have put all their eggs in one basket. Global warming seems to be behind every single environmental initiative. What ever happened to reducing pollution for the sake of keeping our rivers clean? Our nation is far cleaner than it was in the 60′s and 70′s – as a result of technological development.

  4. By Lynnae on Jun 17, 2008 | Reply

    I’m with you on this too. I think the one good thing that has come out of all the global warming talk is that people have begun to see how wasteful we are, and are taking steps to change it.

    I’m trying to be “greener”, because it’s the right thing to do, not because I’m scared that the earth is going to melt. However, when it comes to environmentalism, I draw the line when people become less important than the environment. :)

  5. By plonkee on Jun 17, 2008 | Reply

    It’s funny how the place in the world currently most affected by changing temperature is in the USA.

    I don’t care whether you think the world is getting warmer because of human activity or not. We should use less resources. Full stop.

  6. By rocketc on Jun 17, 2008 | Reply

    That is the point – man cannot control the weather. The sun is the single greatest factor on our temperature and we have no way to change it. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that a decline in solar activity might be ushering in a period of global cooling.

    Is it true that the US is most affected by climate change? I’m not sure where that date comes from. . . I do know that the place I lived last winter had it’s coldest winter in 100 years.

  7. By plonkee on Jun 18, 2008 | Reply

    Fairbanks, Alaska has the biggest shift in temperature. And of course it makes a difference there because the permafrost melts.

    I won’t debate global warming with you, but I think that the industrial revolution has a lot to answer for in terms of damage to the environment.

  8. By rocketc on Jun 18, 2008 | Reply

    Massive global temperature change has happened before. Just look at the plants and animals that have been preserved in the ice of the Arctic.

    Global warming and cooling is a natural part of the history of the earth.

    The central part of the discussion and the critical divide is whether or not man is causing the warming or cooling.

    I believe that man is not, nor can not cause global warming and cooling. This hypothesis is being used to punish developed civilizations. There are countries that pollute far more than the United States. The US is being picked on in this fight because a) we have a conscience (unlike Russia or the Chinese or most of the Middle East) and b) we have deep pockets.

  9. By rocketc on Jun 18, 2008 | Reply

    Check out the Beeb on the subject of a tropical arctic:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5034026.stm

    and recent trend toward global cooling:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.html

  10. By david on Jun 18, 2008 | Reply

    All the way back in 1988, the World Meteorological Assn. and the United Nations Environment Program joined forces to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. The panel has issued three assessments (1990, 1995, 2001), representing the combined expertise of 2,000 scientists from more than 100 countries, and a fourth report is due out shortly. Its conclusions — global warming is occurring, humans have a major role in it — have been ratified by scientists around the world in published scientific papers, in statements issued by professional scientific societies, and in reports of the National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society and many other national and royal academies of science worldwide.

    So sure, anyone can find 400 scientists who say climate change is not happening…but you can also find over 2,000 who say it is.

  11. By rocketc on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    There are major problems in the IPCC’s reports

    http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2007/12/dr-nils-axel-mrner-claims-ipcc.html

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=67

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    Furthermore, I have deep suspicion with anything having to do with the UN. Their credibility is less than Al Gore.

    I know that I can’t change your mind on this issue, but I think that we will begin to see a shift in world opinion very soon. Too many global warming predictions have not come true and too many people are profiting from the hysteria.

  12. By rocketc on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    Also, the 400 to whom I refer are those who were once part of your 2,000.

  13. By steve on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    It’s not noble to be contrarian when you’re dead wrong.

    The arguments you present as to why global warming is (a) real or (b) not caused by human activity are weak. I don’t think there are 400 scientists who went to the Senate. Also, a single professor from MIT, versus thousands of others? The way to bet here is with the crowd. After all, it’s not just a “crowd”–it’s a couple thousand climate scientists. They aren’t known for just making pronouncements based upon their “gut” or “intuition”–they use their intellects, as well as the scientific method.

    It’s all reassuring to believe that we can keep going on like we have, “keep the economy strong and it’ll all be ok”–actually, it really won’t be ok when we hit the environmental wall.

    1) re: “We cannot predict the weather, therefore it is ridiculous to believe we can predict the climate”–

    no one has ever claimed that we can predict the weather. the broad scientific consensus is, we can make relatively accurate broad predictions about the average temperature of the surface of the planet. which, actually, is a stupendously astonishing achievement of humanity, to even be able to come up with an average temperature for the entire planet.

    The greenhouse theory has been in existence for about 180 years now, and it has never been disproven. Putting the carbon dioxide that the earth has been sequestering for 10s of million s of years back in the atmosphere in 130 years or so of industrialization, and you will be definitely changing your climate.

    The fact that the sun is the primary force behind the climate is not going to save your argument either. Actually, the sun is getting hotter on average in its lifetime (just not in the recent, say, 50 years) and will eventually supernova. In the meantime, we are busy pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to heat it up even more. This is not too smart in the long term, butit’s very convenient in the short term.

    3) “the earth has been through heating/cooling cycles before. therefore it is natural and we don’t need to worry”

    ummm-”natural” doesn’t mean “good for you.” There are lots of natural things that are bad for people. E.g, a heat wave can easily kill people. It happens every summer. Usually to the weak and the elderly. Hotter temperatures can kill more. Higher temperatures on average will likely wreak havoc on the entire food chain, particularly in the ocean. Also, all that CO2 gets absorbed into the ocean and acidifies the water. Again, bad for the food chain and bad for us. The ocean will eventually buffer this acid over, say, 10000 years. However, 10,000 years is too long for a human being to wait for a meal.

    Jellyfish will do great under this regime, though. Yum.

    2) common-sense or intuition are not the tools to be using. Global warming can only be comprehended with the analytical mind, not “common-sense” reasoning or analogical reasoning. One man cannot affect the climate. A couple billion can, equipped with internal combustion engines, oil and coal furnaces, and simple fireplaces, can, however. And do.

    Sorry about the unpleasant truth.

    Be Well

  14. By rocketc on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

    Steve, there is a plethora of evidence on my side, it is just not on the nightly news or the front page of the newspaper. You just have to dig for it a little more.

    It is not my intent to be contrarian for contrarian’s sake. The majority has been wrong before and I am suspicious that it is wrong this time.

    But we will have to wait and see.

  15. By rocketc on Jun 20, 2008 | Reply

    A few more links for anyone who is interested in learning more:

    Global Warming took place between 1918 and 1940, cooling took place for the next 25 years, warming begain agin in 1965 and ended in 1998. We have now been in a period of cooling for the last 10 years. Does that strike you as odd? The expansion of industry and resource usage continued during that entire period. Read the whole article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

    Virtually all of the predictions that have come from the IPCC and other global warming advocates have been wrong:
    http://www.aib.subdivisions.co.uk/?p=1074

  16. By Gail on Jun 26, 2008 | Reply

    Great article. Finally, someone who is using common sense! Keep up the good work!

  17. By Deamiter on Jul 7, 2008 | Reply

    Funny how the recent published model that predicts cooling in the next decade has been wrong in hindcast twice before in the decade around 1970 and the decade around 1999…

    Further, for the prediction to be correct for 2000-2008, ALL the remaining months would have to be as cold as January 2008, by far the coldest month in this decade so far.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/the-global-cooling-bet-part-2/

    You seem to be quite skeptical of climate predictions based on the difficulty of meteorologists to predict weather. Are you not aware that these are very different fields with very different models?

    You ask us to check the credentials of scientists… why not read the original sources rather than just picking those who are most public? Isn’t a peer-reviewed paper with a reproducible model much more authoritative than unverifiable position claims? How have you come to the conclusion that the dozens of models considered in the IPCC reports were wrong — do you just ignore the data and reject the conclusion based solely on the fact that you distrust anything remotely related to the UN?

  18. By rocketc on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Computer forecasts are incredibly inaccurate. Just like the weather on the evening news.

    I have read most of the latest IPCC report, but this blog is not the place that level of scholarly discussion. I can add a few more thoughts:

    Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, has admitted that no warming has occurred so far in the 21st Century.

    The original IPCC report makes no concrete claims that man has caused global warming. However, the later “interpretations” by UN bureaucrats and media members have made those conclusions.

    Problems with the science contained in the IPCC report are numerous:

    From 1996 when the most catastrophic predictions were made: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm

    Wegman debunks the “hockey stick” http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2008/03/14/80438.html

    No observable evidence that CO2 is driving climate change: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/04/19/ipcc-challenged-to-recant-global-warming-position/

    Accused of destroying and falsifying evidence:

    http://newsbusters.org/node/13698

    Scientific level papers – not filtered by the mainstream media: http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/research.cfm?TopId=564

    “The Times recalled that in a recent National Center for Policy Analysis study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Green and Armstrong found that the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions.” http://www.madeinusanews.com/content/view/399/113/

    You can trust the UN all you want, but their track record is pretty weak. Oil for food, sex traffic rings, coddling of terrorists, standing by during ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and more.

  1. 2 Trackback(s)

  2. Jun 17, 2008: » The global warming theory is squeezing my personal finance 8th Grade: What The World Is Saying About 8th Grade
  3. Jul 15, 2008: Is It Getting Warmer? » Chuck Norris is an energy expert?

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.