"Global Warming": The Origin

Let us go back to fundamentals here.  HOW did the vague concept of "global warming" get started (this story of an ice chunk breaking off of Antarcitica is meaningless "global warming propaganda)?

Well, after a COOLING period ending in 1970 (approximately 1940 to 1970), the Earth enereed a warming period (which seems to have basically ENDED 5 to 10 years ago--see the multiple entries in this blog, over the past week).  Radical environmentalists looked for a way to USE this warming to advance their political agenda.

Do we WARM the Earth when we heat our houses (just from the production of heat--not counting "greenhouse gases").  Of course we do.  In fact, one of the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS is that the production of energy ALWAYS produces HEAT.  Our own bodies produce HEAT (besides exhaling CO2--a greenhouse gas).  But the entire energy produced by man--although it does produce HEAT--is negligible when compared with the energy transmitted to the Earth by the SUN. Therefore, it was OBVIOUS that environmentalists could not get away with that argument--the argument that direct heat produced by man is "causing" warming of the Earth.

What to do; what to do!!!  Well, they found an answer.  Heating your house DOES "warm the Earth", but is obviously too minor a factor.  But we don't know much about atmospheric science.  There is such a thing as the "greenhouse effect", and greenhouse gases surely have a "warming" effect on the Earth (as does heating your house, or any other production of energy).  There is no reason to believe that this effect is any more major, in comparison with the SUN, than the other minor heating effects of the activities of man.  But we don't know enough to DISPROIVE IT.  This explains totally where the vague concept of "global warming" came from:  an attempt to USE an obvervable thing (warming, over a limited period) to advance a political agenda USING a "theory" that can't really be disproven (in the short run)--even though this vague concept is unlikely (logically) to be much more of a factor, in comparison with the SUN, than man's direct production of heat.

Note the beauty of the "greenhouse gas" concept for environmentalists/leftist anti-capitalists.   It USES the SUN, instead of being able to be directly discredited by comparison with the sun.   Now the greenhouse gases we are putting in to the atmosphere have a very SMALL effect of the composition of the atmosphere.   But the beauty of the "global warming" hypothesis is that the "greenhouse effect" turns the sun's own reflected rays into heat.   As stated, we don't know enough about atmospheric science to specifically evaluate the magnitude of this effect--although logic would suggest the effect is small (just like the "direct heat" produced by the activities of man is small).

It does not matter.  All environmentalists wanted was a "theory" to HYPE to advance their political agenda--a theory that could not easily be disproven.  They found one.

Can the "theory" survive data showing that that the Earth is no longer warming (from whatever causes).  Of course not--SCIENTIFICALLY.  But look what "global warming" fanatics have accomplished.  They have, in the media and even in the minds of people, separated the "theory" from the actual "science".   Now every event, such as a big iceberg or "unusual weather", becomes confirmation of "global warming"--even though scientifically meaningless.

It is all a giat scam--a giant con game made possible by the willing suspension of disbelie/skepticism by the mainstream media (plus the corresponding pressure on scientists to conform to the new "conventional wisdom", while scientists who do not conform are relegated to totla obscurity).

Note:  The above is a reformulation of an earlier entry in the past week.   See the multiple entries over the past week to get a full picture of what is going on with "global warming", as well as the perhaps hundreds of entries over the life of this blog.  I thought the above analysis of the origin of "global warming" (the fantaic religion/political movement, and not the actual warming of the Earth) was valuable enough to repeat (in slightly altered form).