Global Warming and Climate Change Myths

Quick Summary of Information 

  • No one is against helping to protect the environment, only against assessing a burden on the U.S. economy that will cost jobs and drive businesses overseas on unproven science.
     
  • Computer modeling for predictable outcomes is a new science, with unproven predictions.
     
  • Quantifiable atmospheric data has only been available for 50 years- a very short time to extrapolate centuries worth of data in terms of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
     
  • Of the 3 gases that comprise the "greenhouse" gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide), only carbon dioxide is created with oil based combustion engines.  It is also the only gas of the three that can tracked, taxed, fits a political agenda, and regulated for substantial political revenue.

Click Specific Talking Points on Global Warming

In any discussion regarding Global Warming, it is important to recognize that, depending on the dataset, it can be reliably shown that the temperature in the short term is increasing.  What is up for discussion are the causes the warming trend.  We would also like to caution on the use of Global Warming.  A better terminology would be "Global Temperature Trends".  The phrase Global Warming assumes an accepted outcome;  Global Temperature Trends does not.

The best site we've found for looking at global temperature trend data is http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html because it compares data from different datasets and does not extrapolate but provides the information in absolute temperatures.

The Importance of Datasets

 Datasets are the raw data collected on temperatures.  These datasets differ in terms of location where the information is gathered, the time frames used and what each is measuring (land temperatures, sea temperatures, rural temps, urban temps etc.), the time frames within the dataset and the computer modeling used to extrapolate data.

It's important to recognize that there is bias in the datasets on both sides.   Depending on whom your discussing the topic, you may not want to use this information.  Most eco-nuts are ideological and will not concede that there is bias in their datasets; only ours.  If you're speaking to a rationale person, knowing that the different datasets each have bias built-in helps your argument.

The First Casualty of Politics is the Truth

Ninety-nine percent of the atmosphere is comprised of oxygen and nitrogen.  The "greenhouse gases" comprise a small portion of the remaining 1%.  This is not to minimize their potential impact on global temperature trends but it is important to know what the components are and why carbon dioxide was singled out as the villain in the mix.  The interaction of the gaseous elements in our atmosphere are not well understood and our ability to measure them only goes back 50 years;  a very short time frame from which to be extrapolating centuries of supposed data.

Of these gases, only carbon dioxide increases can be tied to the burning of fossil fuel. This makes it an easy target to gain political control over production in the U.S.  Every business and every household utilizes electricity, it is easy to track, tax and regulate. For this reason, it is also easy to hand out "carbon credits" to political cronies and contributors.  In every election cycle the possibility exists to punish those businesses who supported the losing candidate.  How would that bode for the U.S. economy?

Methane and nitrous oxide are two other components of the "greenhouse gases".  Methane as a percent of the atmosphere has increased at a higher rate than carbon dioxide but the increase is traced primarily to the decomposition of landfill material and farm animals. There are no political power or tax opportunities with methane so it gets ignored as a potential factor.   There is no way to control nitrous oxide in the atmosphere so it too is ignored as it has no revenue and crony capitalism potential.

No One is Against Helping to Protect the Environment