Return to Notes on Global Warming                                                                                                   

Updated Jun. 11, 2016 


Notes on the Topic of Global Warming (Extensions to Page 1)

Calculations Showing Mankind's Contribution to Global Warming

The calculations below show that mankind's contribution to the average temperature of the earth, as produced by the Greenhouse Effect, is most probably somewhere between 0.07 to 0.46. This is barely measurable on most thermometers.

Even those scientists who claim that man-made global warming is a verified fact would generally agree with the calculations here. The basis of their whole theory, and the basis for their computer models of projected climate, is a fanciful, very much unverified and doubtful theory of cascading positive feedbacks that magnify the greenhouse effect of CO2. Such a phenomenon has never been observed in nature. This is not good enough to be called "proof" that mankind's production of CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming!


But Can't We Trust the Government and the Media to Tell us the Truth? And Isn't the United Nations Trustworthy?

To be able to appreciate the message that I am trying to convey on this topic, you first need to overcome any naive trust that you might have in the "voice of authority". In other words, you need to understand the fact (or at least consider the possibility) that governments and the mainstream media sometimes knowingly tell us big lies (not "mistakes"). This has been especially true of the Western, English-speaking governments and media in the past decade and was shown to be a definite fact (i.e., big lies) by the propaganda campaign that preceded the attack on Iraq in 2003. Another example is the supposed 2011 killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan when even the CIA, as well as several sources in the Arab media at that time, stated that Bin Laden died of his illnesses in late 2001.

One fact alone should alert you to the biased reporting in the mainstream media on this topic the fact that so many scientists reject the man-made global warming theory, as shown on Page 2 of these notes but, as far as I know, this fact has never been reported in the mainstream media. Instead, we were hearing about the topic of man-made global warming almost every day in the years preceding the Copenhagen Climate Conference of November 2009, (or, more significantly, the years preceding the landmark 'Climategate' scandal of October 2009). Since that time, the man-made global warming movement has slowly been losing power, especially with the recent very cold winters that we have experienced, but the movement is still far from extinct (see Dr. Richard Linzen interview, here and here.)

As for the United Nations, it is a sad fact that this is a very imperfect body. It is heavily reliant on money from the U.S.A., and some parts of the U.N. are manipulated and controlled by special interest groups. The part of the U.N. that concerns these notes on global warming is the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). If you search for information about this group (e.g., here and especially here) and if you read about the head of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, (e.g., here), you will begin to understand how imperfect the IPCC is. This is a purely politically-driven body that actually has seriously distorted (= fraud!) the opinions of some of the scientists in the papers that they have submitted to the IPCC. This distortion was produced by the policy statements that the IPCC issued (issues), which have been a very inaccurate summary of the research findings of the scientists. (See here.)


But What About the Polls and Opinion Surveys?

Average people on the street are asked questions such as, "Do you think the weather has changed much in recent years?"

Firstly, average people who have never thought about the question don't think there's much difference between "weather" and "climate". Yes, the two are related but "climate" can be defined as the average weather of a certain place at a certain time of the year and these averages are calculated from weather records over long periods of time, such as 30 years. So, even if a high temperature record is broken in one year, the fact that a low temperature record might also be broken in the same year or even in another year would tend to keep the average figures constant. And just like most things that are expressed as an average, there is considerable variation in the figures that are used to produce these averages. Since "climate" itself is an average over several decades, changes in climate can only be established over even longer periods of time.

As shown elsewhere in these notes, scientists don't dispute that there have been changes in climate, mostly because the world has been "recovering" from a mini-ice age that occurred between the 1500's and the 1700's. So, asking average people about their personal perception of climate changes seems to be little more than a public relations stunt.

I think it's difficult for even old people to answer the question stated above. Old farmers would be better able to answer this question than old city people, but I think even many old farmers would not be sure about the answer to this question.  Elderly people have seen many more years of life than young people who are about 20 years old, so an answer to this question is even more difficult for young people to accurately judge. Climate changes take place on time scales that are much longer than a few decades! And there is always some variation in weather and climate from year to year - nothing in nature stays static.

I personally remember that there was more snow in Beijing in the winter in the early 2000 years than there was in the years 2010 to 2013. But nearby parts of northern China seemed to always have robust snow falls (not just in the mountains) all throughout the 2000's so it is clear that other factors are at play here, such as urban air pollution, the urban heat-island effect, and humidity changes. Snowfall, after all, is not just connected with temperature; it's also connected with humidity. Climate is the end result of many extremely complex and not well-understood natural processes that are influencing each other.

Furthermore, it has been shown that there is both "local climate" and "regional climate". It's not as simple as we have been led to believe. Not only that, my life experience of snowy winters is rather limited, especially in the one place, Beijing.  I haven't lived continuously in one place all my life, to say the least. All this complicates my ability to make an accurate, objective judgment on the question of recent weather changes in Beijing.

Related to this is the fact that it seems that mankind's activities do have a measurable effect on the local climate of highly urbanized parts of the earth. The prime example of this is the "urban heat island" effect. Another interesting example is that, in those places where humans have reforested large areas of semi-desert area, where there is little rainfall, annual rainfall then increases in those areas! However, since highly urbanized areas comprise only a tiny fraction of the total area of the earth, the contribution of these highly urbanized hotspots to the global climate is probably so small that it barely influences the global climate at all..

For topics such as this, you need to think about such words as objectivity, subjectivity, illusions and perceived reality. You also need to consider how much your "judgment" or "opinion" on this question is influenced by what the media and school tells you. How can the average person make an accurate judgment on this question unless they analyze, and understand honest, accurate and unbiased empirical data, i.e., data from real-life measurements? Unfortunately, the average person is neither capable of, nor very interested in analyzing complex scientific data, especially analyzing it statistically. This makes the average person very easy to influence with biased, statistically invalid conclusions or even outright lies. But many scientists have analyzed the data and cried out, "Fraud!" You can read what they have said in the other pages here.


The Relationship Between Party-Political Ideology and Climate Change

For various reasons, most people who do not support the argument that mankind is the cause of significant global warming are politically conservative. On the other hand, most people who do support the argument that mankind is the cause of significant global warming are classed as "politically liberal" in the U.S. or "left-leaning" in the other English-speaking countries, for example supporters of the Labour (Labor) Parties in Australia and Britain. Or they label themselves with the self-congratulatory label, "progressive". Of course, supporters of the Green Party can be expected to support man-made global warming.

I do not intend to discuss here in great detail the relationships between one's overall ideological or political leaning and one's belief or otherwise in man-made global warming (AGW). Instead, I simply want to express my opinion that this is NOT a party-political issue. As far as I'm concerned, this is a question of objectively evaluating what is true or not. I used the word, "support" in the paragraph above, rather than the word, "believe" because I think too many people have not honestly tried to evaluate both sides of this important issue in order to come to a genuine belief.

Instead, they tend to adopt the position that their favoured political party has adopted, simply because they have a dislike for the other political party's overall ideology or because they follow a political doctrine in much the same way as religious believers blindly accept all that their particular religion espouses. Either that or they naively trust in the mainstream media which is, of course, institutionally biased on this question. In other words, these people are simply following "political correctness" rather than genuinely investigating both sides of this particular topic to some depth. For example, if you say you believe in man-made global warming but have never heard of the name Professor Richard Linzen, then I don't think you can honestly say you have truly looked at both sides of the argument to some depth. Richard Lindzen was one of the scientists who testified before a U.S. congressional inquiry into this topic a few years ago but he has also made his voice heard in many other avenues over the years.

In contrast to what I wrote in the first paragraph, I think that you will find that a significant number of scientists (and many average people) who do not believe in man-made global warming are, in fact, quite left-leaning on most other issues. And I suspect there are also very many people who do believe in man-made global warming who are politically conservative on most other issues. (See below for a discussion of the definition of "conservative". Here I mean "small c" conservative, as represented by the Murdoch press, for example.) These are the exceptions to the rule, i.e., people who do not fit into the two cases of, "most people" mentioned above.

I address these pages on the topic of global warming to those independent thinkers who do not necessarily fit into either of the two cases of "most people". Don't simply be followers of what most people of your political persuasion say think for yourself! To repeat: this is NOT a question of party-politics or following some politically correct fashion or trend it is simply a question of whether this is verified scientific fact, or scientific fraud.

An example of an independent thinker on this topic is the very left-leaning Professor Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at Ottawa University in Canada. His website is This website has over 7,000 contributing authors listed in the author index. There are quite a few articles there related to the topic of climate change, with some being pro man-made global warming but the majority being skeptical if not fully anti man-made global warming. In other words, the website has at least some balance on the topic of climate change. Dr. Chossudovsky has written very little on the topic himself but the following article, written by him in 2013 shows that he is certainly not a slavish adherent to the established AGW orthodoxy.

Related to this is the fact that the Murdoch media empire is strongly against the man-made global warming idea, which is an interesting and apparently contradictory phenomenon. On the surface, it seems contradictory because most people would classify the Murdoch ideological stance on most issues as "conservative" and this media organization is usually in lockstep on other issues with other media organizations that we assume to be "conservative" such as the BBC and The Economist magazine in Britain, or Time Magazine in the U.S. Those organizations are strong backers of the man-made global warming (AGW) ideology so it might seem strange that the Murdoch press has not joined them on this issue. I suspect that many people who support the AGW theory, especially politically active leftists, do so partly because they have an antipathy to the Murdoch press, or at least these people feel vindicated in their support for this reason. But as stated above, each person should assess this "climate change" question objectively, not based on their overall ideological leanings.

The explanation for the apparent contradiction of the stance of the Murdock press on AGW can probably be found by a closer examination of the label, "conservative". [I am not a media expert and if anyone can offer me a good explanation, please contact me.] It seems to me that the Murdoch press is a supporter of true conservatism that is representative of such groups as self-employed small businesspeople, (self-employed) farmers and other rural conservative people, and working-class urban conservatives. Especially in the U.S.A., these groups tend to be more individualistic and of the Libertarian ideology than those who do not belong to these groups such as left-leaning urban dwellers, i.e., "liberals" and "progressives". Libertarians do not like big government and (excessive) taxation, both of which are an integral part of the AGW movement. They are also not very supportive of other planned major social changes, or social engineering such as the so-called, "gay marriage".

The best explanation that I can come up with for the apparent contradiction is that the Murdoch press is simply supporting the interests and views of the majority of its readers on this and a few other issues, while at the same time supporting the agenda of the BBC, The Economist  and Time Magazine etc. on most major geopolitical issues such as "regime change" in some foreign nations. The Murdoch media company is also antagonistic to organized labor (unionism) as are those so-called conservative media outlets but I think Murdoch is, on that topic, mostly representing the interests of small businesspeople while those other conservative media groups are representing the interests of big business in their anti-union stance, as explained below.

On the other hand, we find that media organizations such as the BBC, The Economist and Time magazines are, in fact, not really conservative at all but are radical in their advocacy of major social engineering, as well as radical in their advocacy of foreign regime change. They are only "conservative" in the sense that they want to conserve the existing economic and social structure of their own countries.

Keep in mind that they represent the interests of the elites such as the merchant bankers of London i.e., "the establishment", not the interests of average conservatives in society. For example, the establishment supports "corporatism", which is often antagonistic to the interests of small businesspeople, who usually espouse true free enterprise values. So the label, "conservative" is not really an accurate label for the establishment. And it is this group, the establishment of Britain and the USA, that not only controls the governments of those nations (of whatever party) and the mainstream media, it also controls many key United Nations bodies, notably the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the I.P.C.C.

As for organized socialism and left-leaning groups including political parties, I believe these have in fact been infiltrated by and are controlled by the elites (the establishment). The result of this is that, on the topic of AGW and some other major social issues, socialists and "progressives" today are actually being led, like sheep, to support the interests and agenda of their enemy! For example, the ideology expressed by the Club of Rome has its origins in the interests of the elites but this ideology is deceptively expressed in humanistic terms that appeal to left-leaning progressives and even socialists. I have written more about this on the page, The Political Agenda Behind the Man-Made Global Warming Movement.

To sum up: I do not see any ideological reasons why socialism or left-wing politics should automatically endorse the man-made global warming movement. Socialism and left-wing politics in general are, at their core, concerned with the economic structure of society, and with social & economic reforms that lead to a fairer distribution of wealth and political power. These are social issues, not issues related to the natural sciences, such as Climatology, a branch of science in which the complexities of this topic are still not well understood.


Why is it that "climate skeptics" and "climate deniers" tend to be so-called, "politically conservative" while believers in man-made global warming tend to be "politically progressive" ?

I suspect the answer to this question could quite easily be found simply by analyzing the social background of the people who compose these two camps.

I'm just speculating here but I would say that conservatives are comprised of several different groups because the word, "conservative" itself is so broad in meaning. Not only that, the duel political party situation that exists in many countries, not just the USA, results in several different groups being lumped together under the umbrella label, "conservative". There are conservatives who are multi-billionaire corporation owners, small business owners, as well as those whose main ideology is anti-Communism. There are also large segments of conservative society that are within 1 or 2 generations of being rural or small town dwellers. i.e., farmers.

Farmers are practical. They are also, on average, not quite as educated as the urban upper middle class. Some of them are financially very comfortable while many others struggle and go bankrupt.

In any society, the rural population perpetuates traditional thinking more than the urban dwellers. Why? Because urbanization is relatively new in human history and urban societies are composed of disparate groups. The ancestors of many urban dwellers were, just a few generations earlier, uprooted rural dwellers who moved into a large town or city. We know that urban societies are less socially cohesive than rural societies, for example, urban dwellers often do not know their neighbors.

It is a fact that people who move from one place to another, or people who lose some of their culture or traditions, are less likely to transmit tradition to their children than people in rural communities that have been close, coherent societies for many generations. By this logic, traditional thinking is weaker in urban societies than in rural societies.

In contrast, "progressives" are dominated by the urban "intellectuals" or wanna-be intellectual class, such as school teachers and second-hand bookshop owners. Pure socialists, such as union leaders and those whose main concern is worker rights, have joined forces with "progressives" (or been taken over by them) on almost all major issues, which I think is a serious mistake.

I think this group, especially the wanna-be intellectuals, are the most readily influenced by media propaganda. Being less traditional in thinking than their rural compatriots, they would be more easily influenced by new ideas, and be more susceptible to having their attitudes and beliefs changed. In some instances, their ideas might actually be advancements, or progress. But not all changes from traditional thinking are necessarily, "progress". The media tries to tell us it is so, but to what extent is that true?

It is also a fact that urban dwellers no longer have a number of practical skills that rural dwellers still have, such as how to creatively use the materials you have on hand to repair damaged farm infrastructure.

Notice also how the media, being urban in focus, tends to favor "progressive" ideology. Rural or local independent media today has been pretty much exterminated in countries and areas such as the USA, Australia, Canada, Britain & Europe.

What is "traditional thinking"?

I think traditional thinking is the answer to that age-old riddle, "What is common sense?"

"Common" means, "everyday" or "widespread". "Sense" means something like, "logic". Basically, traditional thinking is that culturally learned knowledge that has been passed down orally through the generations because it has been shown to be a successful way of thinking; it works.

Practicality and common sense go hand-in-hand. For example, we talk about something being "practical" as opposed to something else being, "unrealistic" or "fanciful" because, in essence, impractical things or ideas lack rudimentary common sense.

Common sense is often based on observations of nature, something that farmers have always been good at, ever since man started farming thousands of years ago. For example, it's common sense to expect rain if the sky is full of dark grey clouds.

I also suspect that agricultural people, wherever in the world and at whatever time in history, have always been "straight talkers", sometimes mistakenly called "simple" by some urban dwellers. It's the old, "Call a spade a spade" type of straight talking. From that, it is only a short step to being unafraid to cry, "Bullshit!" when one hears it, which is what I think conservatives are more likely to say or think than urban dwellers.

In Conclusion

It is a characteristic of "traditional thinking" people to critically examine new ideas before accepting them, and to express themselves when they believe they see erroneous ideas (or lies). 

Conservatives see gaping holes in the credibility of the man-made global warming theory and they are not cowed by the notion of "political correctness", which stunts the ability of people to speak their mind openly. On the other hand, progressives unquestioningly accept what they are being told as true.

Forget the idea that conservatism is being led by the oil companies. Go to any oil company website and read their views on AGW (man-made global warming). The oil companies are right alongside the bankers on this topic. Why wouldn't they be, since they have overlapping directorships and shareholding?