Fathers for Life

Working in the interests of the owners of rural electric services 

| Home | Search | In The News | Contact Us | Share

Site Map
Table of Contents
Alternative Energy Sources
Contacting the Bruderheim REA
Deregulation of the Electricity Industry
E-mail List-Server
Energy Purchase Contracts (Electricity only) Price Comparison
Energy Utilities Board
Gas Meters
Global Warming Explained
Links Page
PC Tips
Pole-testing, pole-changes and line work
Popular Pages
Tips on Energy Savings


You are visitor

at the website of the Bruderheim REA since March 27, 2002

Global Warming Explained
Climate forecasts
What is wrong with the forecasts
The solar constant
The Little Ice Age
Is the Earth warming up or not?
Tree rings
Droughts, sand dunes, and wells that dry up
Greenhouse gases
Glaciers, polar ice and rising oceans
If only we had a bit of global warming

Global Warming Explained

Climate forecasts by people who have an axe to grind

There have been many periods during the existence of the Earth when the globe was much warmer than it is now, and there were many other periods during which the climate was much colder.  However, the claim by climate alarmists that global warming is becoming catastrophic is a hoax promoted by propagandistic publicists who make a living from promoting such hoaxes; a good living at that.  It is not so much a hoax with respect to the warming itself, there may be some of that and maybe not, but at worst it will be far short from what social activists such as David Suzuki claim.  The promoters of the hoax claim that global warming is primarily due to industrialization and that, if industrialization carries on, the warming will become catastrophic, but that claim appears to be quite wrong.

In the trial-by-media that people like David Suzuki and Stephen Schneider (another climate alarmist who during the seventies waxed just as alarmist about global cooling) love to fuel, the decision that the much overstated global-warming trend is real and a man-made (anthropogenic) calamity was made before the fuel was poured on the fire.  Then all possible attempts were made to find evidence that supports the claim that industrialization is causing the end of humanity and perhaps of the globe itself, while evidence disagreeing with the claim was discarded or ignored.
   Objective and reputable scientists worth their salt have a name for that sort of approach to doing "scientific" research.  They call it advocacy research, although David Suzuki doesn't really do any research.  He is just a geneticist who propagandizes climate research by others but only research that fits his agenda.  And Stephen Schneider (no relative of mine, although I have a son of the same name) is said to have once joked that since Greenhouse had hit the public arena, he had become more of a politician than a scientist.
   In the world of the absolute truth, the jury is still out, and, based on the evidence that has so far been examined, quite a different picture emerged than what the promoters of the global-warming scare present. 
   There is quite a bit of that evidence, an ever-increasing amount of it.   Some of it has been available since long before the promoters of the global-warming scare got into the picture and began to make a good living from promoting their agenda.   All along, that objective evidence was discussed with the promoters of the global-warming scare, but the prophets of gloom and doom won't listen.  They scoff at any and all indicators identifying that they are wrong, although they did on a number of occasions already revise their estimated dates for the end of the world, putting it off more and more.  They had to, so as not to appear ludicrous, because their previous forecasts of rising sea levels and other indicators they had made predictions for were not supported by the facts.  However, they still promote a scenario of gloom and doom.   And why not, it is a profitable business they are in.  Why would they want to kill their way of making a good living?

The calculations done by General Circulation Models (GCMs) are the main source of the information that fuels the global warming hysteria.  Nevertheless, not one of them comes acceptably close to accurately calculating what the climate presently is at any location, let alone of the whole Earth.  Not only that, but all of the GCMs differ widely from one another as to what the climate was in the past, and as to what it is supposed to be in the future.

Therein lies the problem.  No one in his right mind will base any decisions about the future on tools that cannot determine with acceptable accuracy what the present is and the past was.

Next Page: What is wrong with the forecasts?

Back to Global Warming Index Page

Posted 2002 09 26 (page broken up into several pages)
2003 01 11 (inserted comments about Dr. Stephen Schneider, a climate alarmist)