Human Caused Dangerous Global Warming – True or False?

Welcome to this blog, –
“Issues on Climate Change”.

This is the first post and sections of it will also be placed onto the “About This Blog” page for future reference by visitors.

This blog is not going to be about whether the planet is warming up or not. Historically it’s always been warming and cooling.  But over the last 2 decades a certain United Nations organisation and other scientific institutions have been issuing alarms that the planet has been warming at an unprecedented level and that it’s because of human activities that it’s happening.

But is it really?

There is a plethora of information supporting the alarmist side of the issue. But there doesn’t appear to be as much information quite so readily available to the general public on the denial side. Maybe I’m just not looking in the right place.

So successful have been the alarmist cries for action been that my fear – and one of the reasons for starting this blog, is that people aren’t listening to an alternate view anymore. They are blindly following and swallowing anything they read or see on TV that reinforces their belief that it’s actually happening. Another is that the cries for action by climate alarmist seems to be growing ever more strident with information that is flat out wrong.  For instance a recent article was published saying that 97% of scientists supported global warming – was complete nonsense.

For those seeking a bit more information that counter many, if not most of the claims made by alarmists might refer to the book, “Climate: The Counter Consensus” by Professor Robert M. Carter.  This book will be one of the sources I will use for any arguments against global warming caused by humans. Here is one extract that resonated with me:

… the greatest damage that has been inflicted by those whipping up the hypothetical threat of human-caused global warming is that the subsequent hysteria has overwhelmed mature consideration of the much greater and proven threat of natural climate change – (Professor Carter).

Who knows if he’s right or wrong, but I personally know people who simply refuse to read anything that contradicts the alarmist claims that humans are creating a problem for the planet.

Actually the history of this debate can be traced even further back to the beginning of the Industrial Age, and particularly with the beginnings of using fossil fuels. Over time, the terms “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” have come to be understood to mean dangerous warming of the planet caused by human activities such as land clearing and emissions of CO2 “greenhouse” gases from vehicles and factories.

There is so much misinformation, deception, cherry picking of facts, exaggerations and outright lies propagated by both sides of the debate that it’s hard to know where the actual truth lies.

Here is what we DO know to be scientifically and factually true, and apparently has been accepted by scientists across the board:

 1. Global climate has always changed and always will.
2. Human activities definitely affect local climates and have a summed potential to affect global climate.
3. Carbon Dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas.

The term “climate change” as its taken to mean dangerous global warming is something of misnomer. But for the sake of simplicity in this blog I’ll continue to use the term to mean “dangerous global warming caused by  humans”.

Comments are welcome but please read the rules shown on the “About This Blog” page.

Scientific Consensus and Scientific Proof?

The words “scientific” and “consensus” are two words that just don’t go together.  A scientific fact is a hypothesis that is published and rigorously  tested by a variety of other scientists to produce the same result. There is no allowance for a “logical conclusion” or a “balance of probabilities” or “circumstantial evidence suggest …” And it only needs one scientist to find the proof.

Consensus is about agreements and whenever consensus is involved there is inevitably politics – or to look at it another way, politics is all about consensus. You can have real science or consensus but you can’t have both. Claims of consensus has historically been used to avoid debate and declare that the matter is settled. It’s still not proof on an issue.

The Search for Proof

“Before human-caused global warming can become an economic, social or environmental problem, it first has to be identified by scientific study as a dangerous hazard for the planet, distinct from normal climate change” – Prof. Robert Carter

Literally trillions of dollars have been spent in the search for such proof. No unambiguous or substantive proof has yet been found despite alarmist claims that it has. Much of the “evidence” is based on computer modelling of just the last 150 years and which is vulnerable to the information that is fed into it.  Scientific papers are sprinkled with words like “may”, “could” “potential” and so on.  Since no unequivocal proof linking mankind to global warming has actually been found, the term “scientific consensus” was born. The term lends itself to the lesser scientifically educated masses that it must therefore be true.

For over the last 2 decades the average people of the world have been told that the “science is settled” on the hypothesis that humans are causing dangerous global warming. Many scientific institutions and governments have become fully convinced on the truth of it. Some Western democracies are even striving to force carbon trading tax systems onto the world in an effort to reduce CO2 into the atmosphere.

So how is it possible that something that has not been proven can be accepted as a truth?

There is no simple answer.  It lies in a myriad of reasons which will take time to explore which will be presented to you over time.  And I will be exposing the inaccuracies and deceptions used by both sides of the issue wherever I find them.

“The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance. We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems”. Michael Crichton 2003:


13 thoughts on “Human Caused Dangerous Global Warming – True or False?”

  1. We absolutely love your blog and find most of your post’s to be what precisely I’m looking for.
    Does one offer guest writers to write content for you personally?
    I wouldn’t mind writing a post or elaborating on most of the subjects you write with regards
    to here. Again, awesome web site!

    1. Hi,
      Thank you for your contact about guest writers. Here are my thoughts about guest writers – not written in concrete. I’m sure we can come to an agreement.

      About the Writer
      The guest writer (writer/s) should not be overly biased one way or the other on the issue of AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming.
      For my own part I am at present leaning a little towards the sceptical side.
      However I do believe I’m prepared to listen to a well reasoned argument, with good source reference material to support the premise of a high human culpability.
      I would be looking for a writer who sits somewhere around the middle – either for or against but not TOO much one way or the other i.e. someone who can reasonably discuss the issue without getting heated – someone more interested in the truth of something than being right.

      The writer would need to be introduced to readers of Issues on Climate Change, so if I accept a writer as a “Contributor” then an introductory post will be made to introduce the writer. To do that I’ll need some background about you that you think is relevant. I’ll even let the writer write it him/herself. But I would need to establish some sort of credentials (credibility) to the readership as to why they should take the time to read what the writer has to say. It doesn’t have to get cosy or familiar or TMI.

      Level of the Work
      As I see it at the moment there would probably be three different ways in which a writer could be involved:
      1. Contributory – the writer contributes ideas, source material, offers (say) text passages for consideration to be included.
      This should not be confused with being registered Issues on Climate Change as a “Contributor” – as opposed to a Subscriber.
      2. Co-Authoring – both the writer and myself conspire to produce a final draft, mutually providing ideas and independent research material.
      3. Individual – the writer produces the entirety of a blog to be posted on Issues on Climate Change.

      Attribution & Remuneration
      I would not pay anyone for their work but any material provided by a writer will be properly attributed at the head of the blog i.e:
      a. This blog has been produced with contributions by at .
      b. This blog has been produced in conjunction with of .

      Individual Work
      1. If I were to publish a work produced entirely by you, then it would have appropriate attribution e.g. Comment by of . The blog post would be titled with the writers own title below which the byline: By would be added. The head of the post would be all about the writer so that search engines will spotlight on the writer.
      2. However a standard disclaimer may be included at the bottom of the article to the effect that Issues on Climate Change does not necessarily endorse or support the comments of any Contributing Authors.

      The clear set of guidelines would need to be formulated, depending upon the level of the work. I haven’t even begun to think about any of that yet but initial thoughts are:

      1. They need to be written and agreed to by both parties. This is intended to circumvent any later objections such as, “I didn’t mean for this or that to be published…” or “I only meant for this or that ….” or “I didn’t think this or that would happen”.
      2. At this point I’d be more amenable to an Individual Work than Contributory or Co-Authoring. There’s likely to be too much mucking around with the latter two.
      3. As you may have seen I prefer to have plenty of illustration graphics in my posts. It’s more likely to get people to actually read a text with graphics, especially if some of them lean towards a bit of humour. Graphics also enable someone to easily find where they leave off reading a textual passage for whatever reason. If you don’t know how to do this, how or where to find appropriate images and/or include them into a blog then I can show you how it may be done. Images must come from the public domain and not under copyright. Images will need to be 300 dpi, plus large enough and sharp enough to be able to read any text in the graphic.
      4. I would not be granting access to the interior of the website, certainly not in the first instance. However there are some add-ons that I can investigate which allow writers to register as Contributors rather then Subscribers, and allows them to submit posts directly. For the time being, one way in which the work might be submitted is by email. Images would need to be numbered and appropriately indicated in the text where each image should be located. Alternatively it may be submitted as an MS Word .doc or in .pdf format. Headings and Sub-Heading are important for search engine purposes and properly used to group related ideas.
      5. Issues on Climate Change will not necessarily publish an writers post “as is”. It will undergo editing and changes may or may not be suggested. Final drafting and editing to maintain consistency is reserved so anything you as the writer would NOT like to see happen, should be spelled out in the guidelines.
      6. Issues on Climate Change will not publish any writers material unless the writer has reviewed the final draft version and provided written acceptance to publish. This can be done my email.
      7. At the end of the post writers should consider a brief bio and include any links to their own website and/or email address. It’s also recommended to include a link to their LinkedIn and Google+ profile pages as well if they exist. This gives the author backlinks and increases their online presence in the search engines.

      If you are still serious about being a guest writer, then let’s talk further and you tell me what you think.


      Russ Swan
      Issues on Climate Change

      PS: I try to live by a motto: Try hard to say what you mean, but definitely mean what you say. I really hate dealing with people who mealy mouth around things, who skip and dance around issues trying not to offend, and who expect the other person to pick up on the vibe. Please be straight forward.

  2. You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I
    find this topic to be actually something that I think
    I would never understand. It seems too complex and extremely broad for me.
    I am looking forward for your next post, I’ll try to get
    the hang of it!

    1. It takes scientists years of formal and post graduate training and experience to understand just one or two elements of climate change. Generally, the average person can grasp an overview concept. But the point I’m trying to reach out to people is that the subject of climate change has become so politicised that we simply can’t afford to just accept at first blush, whatever any scientist tells us. And we absolutely cannot believe at first blush whatever we see in the media, no matter how compelling they make it.

      The whole issue has degraded to the point where we must start asking questions about what we are being told. There will be truth – and there will be exaggerations, distortion and cherry picking of information. If we, as individuals want to know what the real truth is then we have to sort the information down to what sounds logical or which might be a little “over-the-top”. And that goes for both sides of the debate.

      Beware of where the information comes from. For example, I received a comment yesterday that listed a page on the NOAA website in support of how much CO2 was present in the atmosphere. The NOAA is all about oceans. It’s expertise is about oceans. All the webpage was doing was cite information provided by the IPCC which in my view is biased. Look for things like this. Is the alleged source a realistic one to believe.

  3. I wanted too thznk you forr thjs gfeat read!!
    I definitely enjoyed ecery littke biit off it.
    I have gott you book-marked tto look at neww thingss yoou
    I waqnt to tto thank yoou forr thiss grat read!!
    I certainly enjoyed ecery bit of it.I have you book-marked tto cgeck oout nnew thngs yyou I’ve ben browsing
    onine more thaan thgree hours today, yeet I never ffound aany interestin article loke yours.
    It’s pretty worth enough ffor me. In mmy view, iff all webxite ownmers annd bloggers
    made goodd cntent aas youu did, thhe web wkll bee a
    llot more usefu tha ever before.

  4. May I simply say what a comfort to uncover somebody who genuinely knows what they’re discussing on the net.
    You actually understand how to bring a problem to light and
    make it important. A lot more people have to look at this and
    understand this side of your story. It’s surprising you’re not more popular given that you
    surely possess the gift.

  5. Good day! This post could not be written any better!
    Reading through this post reminds me of my old room mate!

    He always kept talking about this. I will forward this write-up to him.

    Fairly certain he will have a good read. Many thanks for sharing!

  6. My partner and I absolutely love your blog and find most of your
    post’s to be exactly what I’m looking for. Does one offer guest writers to write content
    in your case? I wouldn’t mind composing a post or elaborating on a lot of the subjects you write concerning here.
    Again, awesome web log!

    1. I haven’t thought about the issue of guest writers. I will contact you separately so we can discuss the possibility. If you have not already done so, please read the pages About This Blog and About The Author via the links at the top of the page.
      (next day) … Unfortunately you’re email bounced. You’ll find information under the Guest Authors link at the top of the webpage.

    1. Thanks Hannah. It may appear to some that I am against the alarmist side of the argument, but that is not entirely the case. I do believe humans have had an effect on our climate – just not to the extent that the alarmist movement is saying it has.

    1. Thank you. When looking at the links you might also want to follow those through to the original person or organisation. I don’t necessarily agree with anything that any of my sources publish but try to make an effort to be balanced where I can and let the reader make up their own mind. My purpose has never been to change anyone’s mind on the subject of AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming. My concern is that people simply aren’t thinking DEEP enough on the subject and once having made up their minds, simply accept the hyperbole from either side that they agree with. IF the globe is not warming because of human activities, wouldn’t it be better to spend all those literal trillions of dollars being spent world wide on plans and systems that can deal with NATURAL climatic disaster events? Instead for the last 3 decades or so we’ve been spending money to prove a point on a subject that so far has eluded everyone including the best scientists in the world. I say it’s time to move on. Look at Hurricane Katrina. Could a better response system have been put in place with all the money wasted so far on the old hypothesis?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *