Global Warming is a Hoax

Dear Readers,

I keep wondering if the man-made global warming theory will go away any time soon. It looks like it's still going on strong, and I guess it could still go on strong for the next few decades, even if the Earth's average temperature doesn't actually increase. There's a lot of powerful people who have a big interest in keeping the hoax going. Obama, for example, seems bent on promoting solar and wind energy while destroying oil and coal and nuclear energy, and Obama's able to do this because so many people think that gloabal warming is real.

But global warming is a hoax.

I was looking through my computer files, and I found this email that a college student sent to his professor around 2008. It's an email from one of my former student's brothers, I think.

I don't know how comfortable the guy would be with me putting it on my blog, but, I've taken out all identifying information, and if he ever does find out about it, hopefully he'll see it as a compliment. I do like the email. I can sympathize with the urge to tell a liberal college professor how I really feel. I sat through class after class after class of liberal indoctrination, and I kept my mouth shut.

I remember once when I was filling out a class evaluation form, (which would be read by the professor AFTER my grade was finalized) I wrote a lot about how I didn't appreciate his attempt to convert all his students to communism. It was refreshing to finally open up.

Anyway, here's the email. Enjoy.

Dear Dr. -------------,

My main concern is that will the theory of man driven climate change and global warming be presented in a fair and just light, because the film today seemed very one-sided. I understand you are very busy and probably don't have time to read all this; I just wanted to voice a concern. Overall I have thoroughly enjoyed your class, the Woburn case was very interesting and I look forward to what you further have in store for us.

After viewing the film "Too Hot to Not Handle" I found it to be entirely one-sided and quickly dismissive of the few, if any at all presented, critics of man-made global warming. While I respect the fact that this is your class and you have every right to present whatever material you wish to educate us with, I do remember that sometime during the beginning of the quarter, you mentioned that you wanted to present a fair, multi-sided view of environmental science and climate change so to not make it seem as if all industries are the bad guys.

What I think people tend to forget, or simply do not know, is that man-made global warming and climate change is very much only a theory. Many of my peers, much less the American and global public, seem to be in a general consensus on the issue, with what they believe to be a general knowledge of climate change. I myself used to believe in the same basic idea that humans were largely responsible for the current global warming, generally believing that C02 produced by us is causing the warming global climate, and that this idea was pretty much indisputable. However, after taking it upon myself to further investigate into this area (and by no means am I saying that I am in any way qualified in this field; I just feel I've been motivated lately to look into environmental science a little more than my average peer) I can't help but notice several holes in the theory that mankind is driving global warming and climate change.

I know this is a long email, but I would like to point out a few problems that I have with the theory, and why environmental science is like no other science in our world today.

First of all, the entire field seems to have become intertwined with politics and mass media. Everyday on the news we are pounded with stories like "Extreme Weather!" or "Climate Crisis!" or Killer Tornadoes and hurricanes. This alarmist view of climate change is what really kills me. People are being manipulated into thinking severe climate is as big a fear as terrorist attacks; the media has no shame in jumping on every negative story they can find, whether it's a rapist/murderer on the prowl or a potential hurricane in the Atlantic, words like DISASTER and CRISIS grab your attention, boost ratings, sell papers, and generate income. As for politics, you even said yourself that the field has become highly politicized. Because of this scientists worldwide have their opposing research and beliefs suppressed; they are afraid of losing funding for publishing contradicting beliefs to man-made global warming. If they do end up publicly
criticizing the theory, they are immediately jumped on by scientists, politicians, and the media alike and labeled as backers of big oil and other industries. To continue to receive funding for their research, they must alter their results to the liking of the organizations funding them, otherwise it'll dry up. Additionally, when told to find evidence for man-made global warming, scientists will. In psychology it's called the conformation bias, where we look for evidence supporting our beliefs, and overlook contradicting evidence or additional causes and explanations.
I'll wrap this up by listing a few holes I've come to find in the entire theory of man-driven climate change and global warming:

The media's been driving climate change worries for far too long. In 1974, TIME magazine released an article predicting another Ice Age . From about the 1940s to the 1970s, Earth was experiencing global-cooling. Yet at the same time, C02 levels were still very much on the rise. A few other problems I have with the theory include: global warming has been occurring on Mars, my guess is that the sun plays a big role in global temperature change (attached); while the Northern Hemisphere is warming the Southern Hemisphere is cooling (Antarctica is losing ice from its coast but gaining ice at its core ); the idea that C02 is the main greenhouse gas, when it makes up just .038% of the atmosphere and has increased by 60 parts per million since 1940, which is about a .006% increase, there
are other gases responsible.

Last of all I'd like to return to the idea that climate is local. The urban heat island temperature bias refers to the concept that weather observation stations that are located in metropolises or other urban areas will produce a mean temperature higher than those located in more rural areas. So many people concentrated in a small radius heats up the surrounding area as well as the fact that weather equipment located around lots of concrete structures, glass skyscrapers, or factories tend to display warmer temperature readings (attached).

There are several other problems I and many other people with similar suppressed feelings have about this politicized science, but this email is too long as it is. Once again I'm just a regular student and I've merely taken a side interest in the topic and I am not saying my view is any more correct than that of the majority, but the fact that this subject is often portrayed so one-sidedly at times by the media is irritating.

I'm sorry for taking up your time if you actually read all this, but I really appreciate it. I hope I'm not in anyway being offensive or critical of your teaching, beliefs, or your class. Once again I have very much enjoyed your class and do not wish to be a problem. Thank you.

Sincerely,

UCI Undergraduate

Jasper