 
# Liberal Climate Scientists Hate Our America & We Must Stop It!

## An Unbiased Patriotic Rejection of Climate Change

### by

### Dr. Dalton Pepper, PhD

### Climate Researchers Advocating Petroleum

Published By Dalton Pepper at Smashwords

Copyright Dalton Pepper 2015

Dedicated to Mom & Dad,

My Heterosexual Wife,

Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie,

Smith, Wesson, Monster Trucks,

The Troops, God,

&

AMERICA

## Table of Contents

Preface: Environmentalists Scalp America's Bald Eagle of Freedom

by America

Chapter 1: Global Warming—Facts vs. Truth

by Dr. Dalton Pepper

Chapter 2: The Extremely Circumstantial Evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming

by F. Lee Baylor, Esq.

Chapter 3: Upon the Mathematics of the Warming of the Global Air

by Dr. Yuri Yureyevitch Pissov

Главу 4: Мир не становится теплее!

Бубба Хуккаббии Джуниор _,_ Третий

Chapter 5: The Earth Don't Have No Greenhouse Effect

by S. "Old Hoss" Brownback

Chapter 6: Earth's Energy Budget

by Neil "Buzz" Glenn

Special Feature: A Scientist Explains Why You Shouldn't Listen to Scientists.

Part 1: Scientists Are Completely Out of Touch with Society

_by_ _Dr. U. Wright-Ewing_

Chapter 7: Isotopes and the Pathetic, Detail-Oriented Lives of Pathetic Scientists

_by_ _Hugh J. Richard_

Chapter 8: Data Sources?

_by_ _Sean Enmity_

Chapter 9: Modeling: A Poor Excuse for Science

by Dr. Heathcliff Huxter

Special Feature: A Scientist Explains Why You Shouldn't Listen to Scientists.

Part 2: Scientists Are Godless Megalomaniacs

_by_ _Dr._ _Jack Tupp_

Chapter 10: The Climate has Never Not Changed. Ever!

by Dr. S. Tyrone Coldair, DFA

Chapter 11: The Real Causes of Climate Change

by Dr. Geoffrey Myopia

Chapter 12: The Problem with Feedback

by Mike Meeyup

Chapter 13: A Practical Illustration of Non-Global Warming

by Dr. Benedict Cumberbatch

Chapter 14: What the Dinosaurs Would Teach Us About Climate Change IF They Could Talk and IF They Ever Existed

by Rev. Dr. Fideleo A. Sauropod

Special Feature: A Scientist Explains Why You Shouldn't Listen to Scientists.

Part 3: How THEY are secretly conspiring to make YOU seem paranoid

by Name Withheld by Request

Chapter 15: Climate Isn't Changing, The Universe Is

by Lord Kerchief of Umbrage, OBE

Chapter 16: Wild Animals

by Professor Aldo Dimentia

Chapter 17: I'm Totally, Like, 19 to 24 years old and I don't believe in Global Warming

by Professor Mackleless

Chapter 18: Alleged Impacts of Climate Change

by Dr. Laura Malkintent

Chapter 19: The Global Warming Conspiracy is All About Wealth Redistribution

by J. Thurston "Mitt" Roquefort IV

Special Feature: A Scientist Explains Why You Shouldn't Listen To Scientists.

Part 4: Scientists have been Forecasting Disaster for decades and they've been wrong

by Dr. T.T. Hindsight

Chapter 20: A Bold Plan to Boldly Assure Our Continued Freedom Forever and Always

by Dr. Dalton Pepper

Bonus Feature! A Short Story That Has Nothing to Do with the Climate-Change Debate

by Earnest Hemmingway

Appendix A: It Goes without Saying!

Suggested Readings

About the Author

What the Critics are Saying?
Preface: Environmentalists Scalp America's Bald Eagle of Freedom

The mighty American eagle has soared like a falcon over the global landscape ever since this glorious nation was founded nearly twelve-score years ago. Our majestic avian emblem has risen on the updrafts of freedom and ridden the mighty breezes of capitalism to heights never before reached by any national symbol on Earth. But our patriotic bird is under threat like never before, by insidious forces that wish to shoot her from the sky and dance a hateful jig over her lifeless corpse. Many of these threats, as they always have, come from hostile foreign forces. The Soviet Union is no more, but the great Russian Bear has been neither defanged nor declawed, and others have rushed in to fill the void of enmity. The Chinese Dragon looms ominously, smoke rising from its flared nostrils, ready to strike at our Eagle's very heart, all the while surreptitiously stealing eggs from her nest. The Arabian Horse, the Camel, the Markhor, and the Persian Leopard from the Middle East and Central Asia threaten our treasured emblem at home and in the skies. Her habitat is even threatened by her closest neighbors—the fearsome Chihuahua of Mexico and the mighty Beaver of Canada, which may rush in at any moment and strike her down—should she show weakness or empathy.

No external threat, however, is as great as the threats our prideful eagle faces from within. There are those among us who wish to capture our mighty winged fowl, to pluck her feathers and shackle her fearsome talons. To render her offspring harmless doves, forgoing the red meat of success in favor of an anemic diet of plants and seeds. I speak, of course, of America's political left, and its armies of liberal academics, socialist politicians, labor unionists, and self-styled intellectuals. This assemblage of limp-wristed thinks-too-much-ne'er-do-wells is a threat too grave—indeed, much too grave—to confront through overwrought metaphors alone. We need powerful words that lead to powerful sentences and to powerful paragraphs, and ultimately, to this, the most powerful book on climatology since Jesus wrote the story of Noah's Ark.

Environmental scientists, climatologists, and environmental activists are amongst the most dangerous soldiers in this socialist army. These unpatriotic rainbow warriors have been responsible for legislation that is more harmful to American capitalism than anything since the introduction of oppressive child labor laws. No less an authority on U.S. history than United States Congresswoman Michele Bachmann [1] perfectly summarized the disastrous confluence of scientific activism and government overreach when she remarked that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be renamed the "Job Killing Organization of America".

The media is completely complicit. In 2012, coverage of the hot, dry weather that affected much of the United States over the summer was referred to by the media in overblown, sensational terms such as "record breaking drought", merely because many places had less rainfall than at any time in recorded history. Of course, the joke was on the media, who were quickly proven wrong in 2013, 2014, and 2015, when many places became even drier than they were during 2012—some "record", right? Similarly, the media stampedes toward the biased, hyperbolic term "deadly heat wave" every time it gets really hot and a lot of people die from it. Fortunately, most patriotic Americans recognize these types of events for what they are—simply terrible tragedies caused by completely random weather patterns bestowed upon us by our benevolent Creator. The liberal media and their affiliated scientific "experts" of course, try to promote their radical agenda by claiming that temperature and rainfall have something to do with the Earth's climate. "It must be global warming! We must stop burning fossil fuels!" they say, usually with very left-wing expressions plastered on their liberal mouths and Marxism glowing in their beady socialist eyes. Few of these Leninist media outlets, if any, pointed out that droughts and heat waves have occurred as far back as the 1700's and that many people have died in the past, not just from heat and drought, but from a lot of other things. But why would they? This would completely undermine the agenda they are constantly promoting—that human activity is making conditions on the planet increasingly worse, and that America's rich and powerful must pay the price.

This biased response is not isolated, but instead is emblematic of our current situation. These days it seems as if all the planet's problems are blamed on human activity. Whether it is the loss of the world's rainforests, high radioactivity levels in Fukushima, or oil residue washing up on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, scientists and the media reflexively point the finger of blame at our own species, and then point that same damning finger even harder at America. The furor over climate change, as described above, exemplifies this attitude. Problems as diverse as summer heat waves, sea level rise, the decline of species in the Arctic, and an increase in storm frequency have all been conveniently blamed on the vague phenomenon known popularly as "global warming". "Humans are bad for the planet", we are constantly told, "because we burn fossil fuels and create pollution". Unfortunately, the United States takes the brunt of the blame, merely because we are the richest, most powerful, and most successful country ever on Earth, ever [2]!

So I sit here alone before my laptop today, much of yesterday, and several days last week while my daughter was taking a nap, to make a spontaneous confession to the American people. I am an environmental scientist, specializing in the study of climate. I have been a party to everything that has gone wrong with this country since Ronald Reagan rode off into the sunset up to his now bygone shining city on a hill [3]. But I offer this humble confession only to make amends. I no longer wish to ravenously suck the sweet honey from the flower of liberty that springs from our rich, capitalist soils. I wish to distance myself from my academic colleagues and the other 47% of Americans that are dependent upon government handouts and the EPA for everything from a living wage to breathable air.

Unfortunately, as a lifelong academic, I have a limited skill-set, almost no ability to create jobs, and a warped perspective on the real world, so my purpose was not initially clear. Fortunately, after several minutes of soul-searching and listening to AM radio, the answer hit me like a block of ice falling from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. I could do my patriotic duty by exposing the dangerous folly that is environmental science, and develop my own "common sense science" to preserve America's greatness.

Traditional science once had its place in American life. During the Industrial Revolution, it established of some the basic technological principles that helped our society prosper. These days, however, science is only important in certain highly-specialized fields, such as computing, medicine, engineering, agriculture, transportation, energy, and defense. For the most part, scientists do abstruse research that is meant only for other scientists. I don't want to make unrealistically precise generalizations, but 91.3 % of scientists make absolutely no contribution to American society and another 7.4% do more harm than good. Environmental scientists and climatologists make up a big part of this 7.4%, because they myopically put facts and evidence ahead of the more reassuring answers that prosperous job-creating Americans want to hear. It is only common sense, therefore, that these scientists should stop. They are causing the destruction of the greatest national economy that has ever existed.

As an initial step in my quest, I have begun to assemble a group of like-minded scientists, pundits, thinkers, talkers, and others, who value this great country more than they value unpatriotic facts on a computer monitor, soulless peer-reviewed research, or the respect of the scientifically literate. I will focus these efforts largely on fossil fuels. I argue that oil, far from being an evil product that will lead us to ruin, is exactly the fuel that will continue to power this country to unrivaled prosperity. To demonstrate my ongoing commitment to gasoline, the fuel of the future, I have named this scientific group "Climate Researchers Advocating Petroleum". Our goal will be to outline how the scientific community has used their craft to hoodwink the public into renouncing its freedoms while growing enormously rich and powerful in the process [4]. The following volume is an assemblage of some of their essays—based on common sense science and uncritical patriotism—that will attempt to tear down the hoax that is "climate change" and restore our great nation to the state of perfection the Founding Fathers and their slaves envisioned when they first dumped King George's tea into Boston Harbor more than eleven score and twenty-two years ago.

Fed by the landfills of our prosperity, with bones strengthened by the heavy metals of capitalism, our Majestic Eagle will soar ever higher, well into the first two-fifths of the Twenty-First Century! And Always!

Yours Truly,

America [5]

### Notes—Read the Notes. Every chapter. They're notable.

1. Now former congresswoman, bless her heart.

2. Including the future.

3. Some Reagan scholars argue that he came down from the shining city on the hill.

4. Bunsen Burners for everyone!

5. Co-author: Dalton Pepper

# Chapter 1

### Global Warming— Facts vs. Truth

### Dr. Dalton Pepper, Big-time academic

In 2014, we were bombarded with apocalyptic news about so-called "climate change"—at least when the power wasn't out due to winter storms or drought-induced wildfires. The IPCC released its Fifth Assessment Report [6], and the United States government released its most comprehensive report ever on climate change [7]. These reports provide further confirmation that scientists and government officials just won't shut up about climate change. The U.S. government report, in particular, has the audacity to devote valuable energy—which is badly needed for air conditioning—to make the case that climate change is a problem right now, not simply an issue for our children or grandchildren.

I don't want you to waste valuable time reading these reports—there are SUV's to be driven, firearms to be shot, and an ever-expanding universe of Kardashians to be kept up with (and now a Caitlin [8]). Let me summarize. The reports claim that the global warming has been occurring since the Nineteenth Century (Fig.1) and its effects, including heat waves, droughts, flooding, warming in the high latitudes, and ecosystem impacts, are being observed around the world. They further allege that the primary cause of global warming is excess greenhouse gas emitted through human activity, particularly deforestation and fossil fuel use (Fig. 2). According to these reports, greenhouse emissions rose 5.9% in 2010, and an additional 3.2% in 2011, both setting records. At this rate, the reports claim, the carbon dioxide (CO2) level could reach 560 parts per million by the second half of the century, which is twice the level it was at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Apparently, this increase could produce 2°C to 4.7°C (3.6°F to 8.5°F) of warming. The reports claim that Antarctica's ice sheets will continue to shrink, while Greenland's glaciers might disappear entirely, resulting in several meters of sea-level rise. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) alleges that the Arctic is changing rapidly, becoming considerably warmer and greener. Furthermore, the lack of sea ice will cause fundamental changes in heat exchange between the ocean and the atmosphere. Scientists have found that species are responding to climate change up to three times faster than previously estimated. Changes in habitat quality and food sources are putting wildlife populations under stress. Human society is being impacted by sea level rise, flooding, and water shortages. According to scientists, these impacts are likely to not only continue, but to intensify.

Figure 1: Global Temperature Change since 1860 (Robert Rohde, Global Warming Art)

Figure 2: Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration as measured at Mauna Loa observatory. Global atmospheric concentration recently exceeded 400 ppm (NOAA, 2015).

Of course, these are just facts...empty, heartless, facts. As we all know [9], facts are not the same thing as the truth. You don't have to believe facts, because there are always plenty of specious [10] arguments and a panel of experts [11] to contradict them. It is only through a careful selection and a single-minded interpretation of the _right_ facts that we can achieve the truth we want. Dare I say, the truth that this great country deserves! In this volume, I have assembled a panel of experts, including myself, to put a stop to all of the aggressive scientific fact-mongering dominating the liberal media and provide real, patriotic answers to the issues we face.

The contributors to this volume, as respected scienticians, pundits, and other people with free time, are united in the well-reasoned view that our great country will not take a backseat to "nature". Climate change is a hoax, and fossil fuels are a gift from God to the greatest nation that has ever existed—America. To ensure that fossil fuels remain the energy source of the future, I have formed a consortium known as Climate Researchers Advocating Petroleum and signed all of the contributors to this book up as members [12]. In a nonsensical, fact-cluttered landscape, CRAP truly represents the true light of truth.

### Notes

6. http://www.ipcc.ch/

7. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report

8. Spoiler Alert: She used to be Bruce Jenner.

9. We, meaning FOX News viewers.

10. In this context, "specious" means totally convincing and correct.

11. Someone who owns a suit and agrees with the host, or any hot blonde who can talk.

12. Several willingly.

# Chapter 2

### The Extremely Circumstantial Evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming

### F. Lee Baylor, Esq., Big-City Lawyer

Do you know what circumstantial evidence is? Well I'm a lawyer, so I should know a thing or two about it. I really should [13]. And much of the evidence for the idea that global warming exists and is being caused by humans is purely circumstantial. Here is a sample:

  * Greenhouse gases are known to absorb longwave radiation, which causes the air to warm.

  * Combustion of fossil fuels, which began during the Industrial Revolution, releases a large volume greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

  * The global atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases appears to have been fairly stable for several hundred years before increasing rapidly during the Industrial Revolution to the highest level of at least the past 400,000 years (Fig. 3).

  * The Earth's temperature has been steadily rising since the Industrial Revolution.

  * Changes in other climatic variables, such as solar and volcanic activity, have been monitored during this time and cannot account for this rise in temperature.

  * Computer models show that the only factor that can account for the warming that has occurred during this time is an increase in greenhouse gases as a result of fossil fuel combustion by humans.

Now I ask you, does this prove that global warming is being caused by human activity? Let's use an analogy—would a jury convict a man of murder just because he had a gun, was the only person there when the victim was shot with his gun, had gunshot residue on his hands, and had a prior history of shooting people [14]? I certainly hope not! And so does my client. Don't believe all this global warming hype.

Figure 3: Global Carbon Dioxide during the past 450,000 years (main graph) with global carbon dioxide during the past 1,000 years (inset). (Source: Robert Rohde, Global Warming Art)

### Notes

13. I really should, but between searching the sidewalk for unscratched lottery tickets and spying on my neighbor, who has the time?

14. That depends. Is he white?

# Chapter 3

### Upon the Mathematics of the Warming of the Global Air

### Dr. Yuri Yureyevitch Pissov, Резидент о скамейке в парке, Государство Университет Квадрат

It is great honor for participation for me in this magnanimous project. I am but humble mathematician from former Soviet republic of R___. First, history. When esteemed body of American scientist present to me idea for becoming member and write chapter for book, I say no. I am but humble mathematician, I assure. I know nothing for warming of globe. I work on mathematical theorem in tradition of Kolmogorov and Lopatinskii. I speak English like Russian stereotype. I am worse than washerwoman for drunk uncle of Feodor Dostoevsky. This is not problem, spokesman assures. We edit writing to lofty standard of Alabama, USA and provide notes on foot of paper for the clarifying purpose.

Yet I remain not decided. Also I am expressing doubt, for I have cousin in Novaya Zemlya who say weather becomes like Nizhniy Novgorod. What great temperature rise! However, warming of globe is hoax posits American science representative. Cousin does drink vodka in morning I will admit for free, and what am I to know as humble mathematician loathing to adventure outside, expressing preference for cozying warmth of in the doors.

Still, fear and doubt still cling onto my person like red on borscht. I am humble mathematician of theoretical nature in mold of familiars like Fichtenholz or Gnedenko and have inasmuch make no calculations into physics for warmth of air.

Representative assures me. You hold doctoral degree in mathematics to me he questions. From the very institute into the hand of which was presented degrees to luminous brains of Anisenko and Gherkinov I proclaim, with some offensiveness.

Then as scientist of acclaim and largesse, you can aid in fight of communism. Communism I decry! The wicked badger of communism must be struck down in all manifests, I make hearty statement. One necessarily considers that I struggle under heavy iron toe of communism in era of Soviets.

To grasp problem in fullest measurement, informed scientist instructs watching of news fox on a cable. Blonde women and angry men of conviction and rage have clear and angered statements of real problem. Socialist and sharing of wealth practices conspires to hurt business in magnificent Christian American nation of values and patriots. Global warming hoax is one prong on dagger of crushing the American patriotism. Without freedom from environmentalism agency, how would country produce computers, automobiles, and bearded peasants building dynasty from ducks? In style of modern entertainer comrade, Yakov Smirnoff, I say what country?

But such a digression I have caused. I must become to meat and potatoes of on-hand subject. As humble mathematician, I make calculations. Earth's sun is getting not warmer, but is striving for the similar solar output in annual years. I employ differential equations in tradition of Ladyzhenskaya. Energy entering planet is nearly equaling energy exiting of planet. This much is clear. Thusly, no increasing trend for warmth of air.

Warming of globe is not to occur as can see any simple [15] son of peasant landlady of Chelyabinsk. Also through-wise of fortunate outcome has occurred one such nail in the burial of communism!

### Notes

15. Retarded

# Chapter 4(Главу 4)

### Мир не становится теплее!

### Бубба Хуккаббии Джуниор, Третий, Болото Дворецкий, Северо-Востоку колледж Южная каролина

Здравствуйте!

Я интеллектуальный человек из южная каролина. Профессор Писсов написал главу в английском, так я написал главу в русском. Это хорошая идея потому я могу говорить по-русски как лучший осел в сарае. Я согласен с профессор. Он мудрый человек кто понимает как сделать расчеты и он знает, как ходить в туалет. Я не еще узнаю как сделать эти вещи, однако я знаю что мир не становится теплее. Это очевидно! Это как кетчуп на хот-дог.

Традиция из сша есть, человеки кто ничего не знает должен говорить громко. Поэтому, самые громкие климатологи всех в мир они американцы — Руш Лимбаугхь, Билл О' Райлли, Шон Ханнити. Эти сердитые мудрецые мы должем слушать в! Они не нашли никакой климатические информации что противоречит их мнение (или что подтверждает их мнение либо). Тоже если человек хочет находит если климат меняется, этот человек может открыть окно—если жаркое, поэтому она должна, вероятно, быть летом, если холодно, это доказывает мир не становится теплее. В америки, люди не должны слушать в ученые и конечно, американцы не хотят чтобы прочитать. Мы можем выбирать что мы хотим верить и фокс новости канала скажет нам что мы правы [16].

Заключенне ясно! Если, умный Американский яичко может писать отличном русском, он может предсказать климат. И я заявляю мир не становится теплее **!**

### Notes

16. Русское слово для сноска—"сноска".

# Chapter 5

### **The Earth Don't Have No Greenhouse Effect** **[17]**

### S. "Old Hoss" Brownback, Dean of Agriculture, Barn Repair, and Cosmetic Dentistry, MIT (Moline Institute of Trades)

Here's how a greenhouse works. The glass lets sunlight shine right on through. This makes the air hot. The hot air can't go nowhere because of the glass, dumbass. I don't see no glass in the sky, do you? Let's have a look-see at something some scientist wrote, probably at some San Francisco weed party:

"The radiation laws state that all objects with a temperature above absolute zero radiate energy. As the temperature of an object increases, it radiates an increasing amount of energy at shorter and shorter wavelengths.

_Energy from the sun, which has a surface temperature of about 5,000K, consists mainly of shortwave radiation, which is found in the ultraviolet, visible light, and near-infrared bands. The atmosphere itself is largely transparent to most shortwave radiation, much like the glass on a greenhouse, so this energy enters without any difficulty. Clouds, water, and ground surfaces (particularly ice and snow) reflect about 30% of this energy back to space. Of the remaining 70%, about two-thirds is absorbed by the Earth's surface, and the remaining third is absorbed by clouds and particles in the atmosphere. These objects then re-radiate the energy, but at much longer wavelengths, because they are much cooler than the sun. Here's the key point—the atmosphere is not transparent to longwave radiation—instead, it is absorbed by gases such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxides. Since it can't pass straight through the atmosphere, this heat energy is re-radiated and absorbed several times, remaining in the system for much longer than it would otherwise. It is ultimately radiated back to space, but not before it has increased the temperature of the atmosphere considerably. This mechanism is known as the greenhouse effect, and has been documented since the 19_ th _Century. It is estimated that without the greenhouse effect, the planet would have a temperature near 0_ _°_ _F._

The greenhouse effect is a natural and beneficial process, without which life may not even exist on Earth. In the popular press, however, the greenhouse effect has acquired a negative connotation. This is because human activities since the Industrial Revolution, primarily fossil fuel burning and deforestation, have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. This has been the primary cause of recent global warming."

Like I said, I don't see no glass in the sky. This hooey [18] ain't fit to fertilize alfalfa.

### Notes

17. Except in greenhouses.

18. Alfalfa requires hooey of the highest quality.

# Chapter 6

### Earth's Energy Budget

### Neil "Buzz" Glenn, Author, Scientist, Astronaut Admirer

The arguments of the previous three authors are not undoubtedly very clear and compelling; please allow me to provide evidence from NASA that completely supports every single statement [19] that these esteemed, unintelligible men of science, literature, and non-traditional language use have made.

Figure 4 shows Earth's energy budget, again, according to NASA, the agency responsible for luminous scientific achievements such as walking on the moon, jumping on the moon, golfing on the moon, and inventing a color unnaturally bright enough to be seen from space [20]. They also make pretty cool diagrams that are conveniently available to everyone because they are paid for by working Americans' tax dollars.

Figure 4: The Earth's Energy Budget (NASA, 2010, via Wikimedia Commons).

The diagram shows that from 2000 to 2009, the Earth, on average, received 340.4 Watts per square meter (Wm-2) of incoming solar radiation. Of this total, 29.3%, or 99.9 Wm-2, were reflected directly back to space by clouds, atmospheric particulates, and the Earth's surface. This proportion is called the planetary albedo by scientists and other individuals who, in the absence of actual personalities, use fancy jargon to impress people. This energy is immediately lost to space, leaving a remaining 240.5 Wm-2 in the system to heat the Earth. Incoming solar radiation is shortwave, meaning that it consists primarily of ultraviolet, visible, and near-infrared wavelengths of light. Air itself absorbs very little shortwave radiation, although the ozone layer absorbs a significant portion of incoming ultraviolet rays. Aerosols and clouds in the atmosphere absorb some radiation as well. Still, the total shortwave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere was only 77.1 Wm-2. The remainder, or 163.3 Wm-2, was absorbed by the Earth's surface. In other words, most solar energy does not heat the atmosphere directly; instead, it heats the land and oceans directly, which in turn, heat the atmosphere.

To understand what happens next, we have to refer to the Radiation Laws, developed, unfortunately, by openly-European scientists. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, all objects radiate electromagnetic energy in proportion to the fourth power of their temperature. Hot things give off way more energy than cold things. Also, according to Wein's Law, hot things radiate energy at shorter wavelengths than cold things. Therefore, the sun, (being hot) radiates a shitload [21] of shortwave radiation, while the much-cooler Earth radiates much less than a shitload of longwave radiation. The warmer the Earth gets, the more longwave radiation it emits (on the diagram, the yellow arrows indicate shortwave radiation and the orange arrows indicate longwave radiation). Longwave radiation, however, does not easily pass through the atmosphere; it is absorbed by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor. This causes the atmosphere to heat up, and to (re-) radiate longwave energy, which can then be (re-) absorbed by the Earth's surface, atmospheric particulates, or other greenhouse gas molecules. This cycle of absorption and radiation continues until all the energy escapes back into space, either by being converted into radiation that falls within a narrow band of wavelengths known as the atmospheric window, or through direct radiation from the top of the atmosphere. As a result of all this recycling of energy, the atmosphere and Earth's surface are giving off much more energy than they receive from the sun during the same interval of time, keeping the planet much warmer than it would be otherwise. This is known as the greenhouse effect, which is real, and existed long before humans ever set foot on Earth. Also, as the diagram shows, energy is transferred from the Earth's surface to the upper atmosphere by convection, conduction, and the vertical movement of latent heat stored in water vapor.

Over long periods of time, the Earth's energy budget is balanced; the planet gives off the same amount of energy as it absorbs from the sun. The planet is not gradually warming or cooling as it ages. However, the planet's energy budget is not balanced over all time scales—it does heat up when it absorbs more energy than it radiates, and cools when it radiates more than it absorbs. These imbalances can occur over periods of days, years, or even millions of years. Glacial advances occur when the Earth has a negative energy budget over periods of decades or longer. Glacial retreat occurs when the energy budget is positive over these time scales. The diagram indicates that during the first decade of the 2000's, the Earth was receiving 340.4 Wm-2 of energy from the sun and radiating 339.9 Wm-2 of energy back to space. Since these numbers are exactly equal [22] once you round them both off to 340 Wm-2, the Earth clearly could not have been warming up during this time. Thus, global warming is not occurring. Also, as Professor Brownback pointed out, there ain't no glass in the sky. In conclusion, please do not carefully reread the previous paragraph.

### Notes

19. Rough approximation.

20. Today known as "Tang Orange".

21. A shitload is equal to approximately 10,000,000 Wm-2

22. If you don't round them off, it indicates that the Earth has had a positive energy budget of 0.6 Wm-2 and has therefore been getting warmer. Thus, it is best just to round these numbers off and give your air conditioning a little nudge. That way, we can ignore all of the global warming hysteria and go back to being patriotic Americans.
Special Feature: A Scientist Explains Why You Shouldn't Listen to Scientists. Part 1: Scientists Are Completely Out of Touch with Society

### Dr. U. Wright-Ewing, Regretful Academic

I was sitting in my office one day at the prominent state university where I have taught for several years. I had just finished analyzing yet another ambiguous set of climate data, and had moved on to preparing slides for a lecture on the environmental impact of fossil fuels. It had been several days since I had had any students come in to ask me about climate change or human impact on the environment. It occurred to me that students today just don't care about science or environmental issues, except for purely selfish reasons—getting A's on their term papers, doing well on their final exams, and trying to improve society. But who can blame them? These are hard times we live in. The economy, unemployment, and the country's crippling debt are the important issues of the day. Even worse, the fact that China is on the verge of overtaking the United States as the world's great economic power hangs over us like a Samurai sword. Only a fool could be interested in the environment at a time like this.

What was I doing with my life? I had already become disenchanted by science and was just beginning to realize how unimportant my area of expertise was to the younger generation. In my years of focusing on the minutia of academic research, I had missed the bigger picture—that science has done little for the human race [23], and no one cares about it anyway. As the reputable editor of this estimable volume has already pointed out, science is only important in very narrow fields of society, and most scientists do research simply to impress each other, or worse, to destroy capitalism. I no longer wanted to be one of these societal leeches that is sucking the life out of this country. Unfortunately, I was a lifelong academic, with a limited skill-set and a horribly warped perspective on the real world, so at the time, my purpose was not yet clear.

I had a revelation when a student came into my office to discuss career options in environmental science. He was, as so many college students are today, the child of immigrant parents, although I don't want to specify his country of origin. Suffice it to say that his family came from a culture that values hard work and academic success. To protect his anonymity I'll simply refer to him as . He told me that he had originally intended to major in business in order to help fuel the country's economy, but became discouraged by the possibility that our left-wing government would return the country to a 39% marginal tax rate on income over $250,000. This, and the excessive tax burden and government regulation imposes upon businesses in this country, had convinced him that he should go into a field where he would not contribute much to society. I reassured him that environmental science is the perfect career path to go completely unnoticed while doing nothing meaningful, and more importantly, to make so little money that the government can barely take anything from you. It saddened me to see someone with so much potential waste his life trying to save the planet, but what were his options? Work his ass off every afternoon at the golf course making big financial deals only to pay taxes to our bloated federal government and the vast army of welfare kings and queens it supports? I don't think so. He accepted his fate. My heart still aches when I remember the sad, downcast look in  eyes as he shuffled wearily out of my office toward a depressing future full of mountain streams, towering redwoods, and baby turtles.

Now I'm the first to admit that the story above is not technically true, primarily in the sense that it never happened. Nonetheless, it does prove my point; that the young people of today are not worried about the environment. Instead, they are concerned with being productive citizens, fueling the free market, and upholding liberty. Further, they are deeply sympathetic to the plight of the brave job creators who are suffering at the hands of an oppressive federal government bent on extracting 11% of every last penny from anyone who dares to succeed in life. Of course, this is the same government that uses a portion of these tax dollars to promote a radical environmental agenda and smite our economic development in the process.

The Disastrous Environmental Impact Equation

The destructive thinking of scientists is perhaps best demonstrated by a simple equation formulated in 1972 to quantify the relationship between people and the Earth. The approach of these scientists was seemingly a simple one, involving only four terms:

I=PAT

In this equation, _I_ stands for environmental impact, _P_ is human population, _A_ is affluence, and _T_ represents the level of technology in a society. Normal, productive members of society—from real estate speculators to commodity speculators, and everyone in between—would undoubtedly see this equation as an opportunity to increase the planet's value. It's simply a matter of substituting dollar values for affluence and technology and multiplying it by the population [24]. A large number of wealthy people with access to high-tech equipment should be able to create a huge positive impact, increasing the planet's net worth immensely. For example, one man with scant resources— perhaps only hand tools and limited building materials—cannot build a big house with a beautifully-landscaped yard. He may be able to take a $100,000 property and transform it into a $250,000 property, but probably nothing more. On the other hand, a large team of builders and landscapers [25], equipped with state-of-the-art equipment and a modest budget for materials, say three or four million dollars, can work wonders. They can import Italian travertine, Canadian marble, and California redwood. They can replace the nasty endemic vegetation with exotic trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses. In short, these developers can turn an unremarkable piece of vacant land full of vermin [26] and scrubby native plants into a beautiful property worth tens of millions of dollars.

Of course, scientists do not see it this way at all—quite the contrary. The authors of this equation presume that human impact is a bad thing! They argue that human beings and affluence should be viewed in a negative light. Only the technology term in this equation can be a positive factor, and only if that technology leads to less consumption of the very resources that God put us on this planet to deplete.

So clearly, scientists think that both human beings and money are bad things. This is perverse—wealth is bad?! What sort of godless liberal would proclaim that the love of money is the root of all evil in this world?! This is nothing but a pernicious attack on capitalism, free markets, and the American way, cleverly hidden within a seemingly harmless equation. Then again, this not surprising, given the authors of the equation: Paul Ehrlich, infamous for writing _The Population Bomb_ , a book that was libelous toward the entire human race, and his environmental co-conspirator, John Holdren, who was later appointed to head Barack Obama's climate and energy policy team.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the simplicity of this equation, this approach has been used widely by scientists to demonstrate how evil humans are. But in addition to the skewed view of the world upon which the equation was based, it has a more practical limitation. It doesn't work! It includes no units of measurement. In order to have a functional equation, the stuff on the left has to equal the stuff on the right, so you need a common means of comparison. Let's take an example from everyday life. We could say perhaps that one modest, everyday, yacht (Y) is the equivalent of ten Cadillac Escalades (CE), because they have the same monetary value (about $800,000). Therefore, Y=10(CE). I previously demonstrated how the IPAT equation can be used to document massive increases in the value of real estate, but in Ehrlich and Holdren's use of the equation, environmental impact is considered to be negative. Using the resources God put Americans on the Earth to use can't have a negative monetary value, so there is no reasonable way to measure it in financial terms [27]. So over the years, scientists have plugged whatever numbers they want into this pseudo-scientific representation of the real world to push their left-wing, anti-human, and most importantly, anti-American agendas. Calculating the "carbon footprint" of the human race using this equation has been in vogue [28] recently; to do so scientists multiply the population by the amount of carbon that a particular society's prevailing technology uses to support its level of wealth. And wouldn't you know it? As always, countries like Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Chad come out as the big winners, while the United States is vilified. Is there is any justice for America in this world?

The International House of Wafflers

Clearly, the scientific community holds viewpoints that are completely at odds with mainstream society. In the case of environmental scientists like Comrades Erlich and Holdren, this can be directly harmful. But scientists are doing much more to threaten the very fiber of our nation. For starters, they are waffling, squabbling over petty details, and espousing subtleties that don't exist in the real world. The American political system and cable news programming have helped to make clear what most of us already realize; that every important aspect of life consists of exactly two opposing choices—Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, capitalist or communist, white or black, right or wrong, good or evil, freedom or socialism. There is no middle ground, and no certainly no room for indecisiveness, compromise, and uncertainty. Yet science does not adhere to this basic principle of duality that the rest of us take for granted. All too often, we find scientists disagreeing with each other over petty details, to the point that the general public cannot get any coherent picture of their opinions. Let's take an example from climate science. Predictions of Earth's future climate are all over the place. One scientist may tell us that the planet will warm up by 5.1oC in the next hundred years, while another says it will warm by only 3.4oC. In fact, projections of the overall temperature increase commonly range between three and seven degrees, depending upon the scientist. In other words, it's anybody's guess.

Moreover, individual scientists and scientific institutions routinely modify their theories, conclusions, and prognostications quite capriciously, based on nothing but newly-available facts and an increased understanding of the problem. This year, a scientist might say that the planet will warm by 4.2oC, but next year when he comes up with a new computer model, he may say that the planet will actually warm by 3.9oC. The following year...who knows? 3.7oC? 4.1oC? 999oC? In political discourse, this type of behavior is known as waffling. In everyday life, it is known as being flaky. I'd suggest that it is even worse—it indicates the willingness of scientists to compromise on their core principles. To complicate matters even further, most scientists surround every future projection by conditions, such as "if we continue to burn fossil fuel at the same rate we are today" or "if the population continues to increase at such and such a rate". We cannot base public policy on such vague and uncertain statements. Scientists should follow the lead of sports-radio hosts and cable-news political pundits and remain respectively quiet until they are absolutely certain about what will happen in the future.

With all of this squabbling and waffling, you'd assume that scientists are concerned with things that are important to society, but they are not. Although they consider themselves the world's greatest minds, scientists are not applying their real and imagined intellectual skills to solving America's problems. Instead, they are wasting valuable resources studying fruit flies and smashing invisible particles together in enormous particle accelerators just to create more invisible particles. They are trekking into tropical rainforests and probing the oceans to find insects, plants, and algae that differ only minutely from the species we already know about. Can we as a society really afford to squander money and talent to satisfy mere intellectual curiosity? What have atoms, fruit flies, rainforests, or oceans, ever taught us about anything? Worst of all, tens of thousands of scientists are devoted to collecting evidence to support farcical claims involving environmental crises and changing climates. Society is partly to blame for allowing this scientific charade to continue, but of course it is scientists who are the real culprits in this affair, whether they are driven by opportunism, greed, or outright sociopathy. As a scientist myself, I have denounced science, and you must too. We must stop listening to scientists right now. For America.

### Notes

23. Aside perhaps from establishing of some the basic technological principles that have helped civilization prosper.

24. This is flagrant socialism. Each person counts as "one". Even bloody Australians.

25. More than just Juan.

26. Wild animals and the homeless.

27. The only meaningful way to measure anything in a capitalist society.

28. Not the magazine. Although there is quite an enlightening article on 52 new ways to please your man.

# Chapter 7

### Isotopes and the Pathetic, Detail-Oriented Lives of Pathetic Scientists

### Hugh J. Richard, Chemist, Intimacy-Enthusiast

Most of us have a healthy, well-balanced view of the world, based on what we can see, hear, smell, taste, or grope [29]. On the other hand, scientists, with a warped and pathetic view of what's important, try to penetrate deeply to the level of the small-scale. They try to get to know atoms intimately. This seems especially strange for climatologists, who purport to study the entire atmosphere, ocean, and land surface in an attempt to find out whether we're headed for bikini or form-fitting spandex ski-suit weather. I myself studied environmental chemistry in graduate school, before it became clear to me, my fellow graduate students, the faculty, the staff, and the campus police that my aptitudes were more tactile [30]. Still, I couldn't pass up an opportunity to pass along my knowledge by contributing to this high-minded publication, particularly if it keeps gas in my fleet of Trans-Ams.

Climatologists are particularly interested in one special type of atom—the isotope. Isotopes are atoms that share the same number of protons and electrons, but differ in the number of neutrons, giving them a different atomic weight. Some isotopes are stable and some are unstable, but both types can be used to help reconstruct past climates. Some of the most common elements on the planet, including carbon and oxygen, have distinct isotopes. These do not differ visibly, but they do sometimes behave slightly differently. Oxygen, with an atomic number of 8 (8 protons and 8 electrons), comes in three stable varieties 16O, 17O, and 18O (where the superscript gives the atomic weight). More than 99% of oxygen is 16O, but there are measurable amounts of 17O, and particularly 18O, in the natural environment. Since one oxygen atom is found in every water molecule, isotopic differences are observable in the oceans, freshwater, clouds, and ice. Most notably, 16O is much more easily evaporated than 18O, due to its lower molecular weight [31]. As a result, heavier 18O is proportionally more abundant in oceans than it is elsewhere. This is of little consequence if water moves quickly through the hydrologic cycle, but becomes more pronounced during cold periods, when a significant proportion of the ocean water that evaporates doesn't quickly return; instead, it accumulates in ice caps and glaciers. Therefore, if scientists are able to measure the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the ocean during a particular time period, they can calculate how much ice was on the planet and approximately how cold it was [32]. As it turns out, calcareous sediment (CaCO3) that is deposited during various periods of Earth's history includes oxygen isotopes in a ratio that is dependent upon the ratio in the water where they formed. This is how climatologists figure out when past glacial periods were. They drill down through layers of calcareous sediment and measure the oxygen isotope ratios. The greater the fraction of 18O, the more ice there was on the planet, indicating a colder temperature, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Global climate change over the past 542 million years, as indicated by oxygen-isotope ratios (Source: Global Warming Art Project, 2007; Uploaded from Wikimedia Commons)

Stable isotopes of carbon can also be used to reconstruct past climates, because there are a range of climate-dependent biological processes that result in the accumulation of identifiable ratios of 12C and 13C. As we will soon see, these isotopes can also be used in conjunction with unstable isotopes of carbon to identify the source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Finally, in case you are using this book to help study for your geochemistry test [33], it's worth noting that the technique described here is often known as _stable isotope fractionation_.

Unstable isotopes also have their uses, not usually in measuring climate variables directly, but in helping to figure out exactly when everything happened. Unstable isotopes are radioactive, meaning that they emit neutrons, protons, and energy from their nuclei in a process known as decay [34]. In doing so, they transform from a parent isotope to a daughter [35] isotope. Radioactive decay of an individual atom is presently understood to be a probabilistic, rather than a mechanistic, process. In other words, a specific atom of an unstable isotope could decay at any moment from now until never [36]. However, atoms of a particular isotope do decay at an average rate, so if enough radioactive atoms are lying around, a statistically predictable number will decay in a given time period. Scientists call the time it takes for one-half of the atoms of a particular unstable isotope to decay its half-life. Half-lives vary from fractions of a second, for isotopes that no normal person [37] has ever heard of, to trillions of years, for other isotopes that no normal person has ever heard of. Some isotopes, however, do have half-lives and other properties that make them useful in determining the age of fossils, rocks, and sediments—a technique known as radiometric dating. Carbon-14 (14C) [38] decays to nitrogen-14 (14N) in 5,730 years. The decay of uranium-235 (235U) to lead-207 (207Pb) occurs with half-life of 700 million years, and uranium-238(238U) decays to lead-206 (206Pb) with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Potassium-40 (40K) decays to argon-40 (40Ar) with a half-life of 1.3 billion years.

Knowing the half-life of a radioisotope means that scientists can measure the ratio of the parent isotope to the daughter isotope and calculate how long decay has been occurring. As a simple example, if half of the 14C in an initial sample has decayed to 14N, then the sample is 5,730 years old (the same as the half-life). In another 5,730 years, one-quarter of the original 14C will remain. Of course, there are complications. Scientists must know that none of the parent or daughter material has escaped from the sample or been contaminated. In addition, the point at which decay begins to occur must be established for different types of materials. In living organisms, for example, the decay of 14C begins once the organism dies. In rocks, the beginning of decay is typically associated with cooling and solidification. The amount of error associated with this technique is usually fairly small—in some cases as low as 2%—so if applied correctly, it is can be used to find the dates of rock and sediment layers very accurately. Combined with the principle of superposition, which states that rock layers get older the deeper you go, and other sedimentological principles with equally pretentious names, it is quite possible to actually use the Earth's geology to figure out _when_ things were going on, even millions of years ago.

Clearly then, if you're a scientist with nothing else to occupy your mind, isotopes are valuable tools in "reconstructing" Earth's past climates from thousands or millions of years ago, both by allowing past temperatures to be calculated, and by allowing the ages of the geological materials to be found fairly precisely. But can isotopes be used to tell us anything about the causes of modern-day climate change? Well, here again, if all you care about is science, and not more important things, it probably can.

Scientists claim that the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the cause of the warming that has been observed since the Industrial Revolution. Not content with the fact that it would be an incredible coincidence for the carbon dioxide concentration and the Earth's temperature to begin naturally increasing at exactly the same time that humans began burning fossil fuels, and with no interest in spending a productive morning having a few drinks at the local singles establishment, scientists insist on looking at isotopes. They have found that the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere has been changing. Specifically, the amount of 12C has been increasing relative to the amount of 13C and 14C. As it turns out, when plants photosynthesize or decay, they release more 12C to the atmosphere than most other sources (such as volcanoes) do. An increase in 12C relative to 13C therefore suggests that plant matter is the source of the new carbon in the atmosphere. The atmosphere itself generates 14C from carbon that is already there; 14C is incorporated into soil, rocks, and living tissues (including plants), but since it is unstable, it eventually decays to become nitrogen. Owing to decay, any dead organic material that contains a measureable amount of 14C must be less than 100,000 years old. We've already established that the new carbon in the atmosphere is coming from plant matter, but since the relative amount of 14C in the atmosphere is decreasing, these plants must be very old. Based on years of careful research, and the fact that there is no plant material on the Earth's surface that is tens of thousands of years old, scientists immediately rushed to the conclusion that the combustion of fossil fuels is the source of the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In other words, they injudiciously came to the conclusion, based on nothing but science, that human activity causes global warming.

So there you have it, scientists are pathetic, sniveling little cowards who are no fun at all, but they have figured out how to use chemistry and geology to reveal what the Earth's past climate was like, and even when it was like what it was like [39]. Furthermore, they have wasted years trying to show that human activity causes human climate change, succeeding only in the narrowest scientific sense. I hope that keeps them warm at night.

### Notes

29. The five senses of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

30. The terms inappropriate, gross, lascivious, and disgusting may have been used once or twice.

31. Evaporation's bumper sticker: "No Fatties"

32. Spoiler Alert: They are.

33. If you are using this test to study for your geochemistry test, please also consult the University Calendar to see whether it is too late to drop the course and switch majors. Also Sbarro is hiring shift managers.

34. Decay does not involve emission of neutrons and protons in all contexts. For example, Detroit emits only stray bullets and sadness.

35. Daughters?! I have a passenger seat in my Trans-Am.

36. Also Time-Warner's Service Motto.

37. No non-scientist.

38. That stuff they always talk about on "Bones".

39. Credit: Yogi Berra

# Chapter 8

### Data Sources

### Sean Enmity, Media Personality, Bloviator

Unlike our trusted media pundits who rely on nothing but their massive intellects [40] to analyze topics like climate and climate change, weak-brained scientists take the coward's way out and rely on data. Unfortunately, collecting data comes at a great cost. First and foremost, data commonly contradict our unassailable opinions about the truth [41]. Second, collecting and analyzing data costs time, money, and intellectual capital that could be better used looking for oil, finding new ways to burn oil, and invading countries that have oil [42]. So obviously climate change research is an appalling waste, but it doesn't seem quite so egregious if you assume, as most people do, that only a handful of scientists do it. But that is by no means the case. In the United States alone, there are literally [43] thousands of climate researchers. More disturbing still, they spend millions of dollars, much of it from the government, to fund expensive research expeditions to exotic destinations, such as Hudson Bay, Antarctica, and Siberia. The magnitude of this operation is really very surprising to most reasonable people—you wouldn't think that it would take that many actual measurements to dream up the fanciful story about climate change that scientists are always trying to cram down our collective esophagi. It would seem, therefore, that scientists are up to something else altogether. They are trying to bamboozle us by collecting so much data and using such complex and time-consuming analytical methods that we—PATRIOTIC AMERICANS—will be afraid to question them in the first place. But question them we will! Although scientists secretively keep much of their information stored safely away from the questioning eye of the public, in locked research labs, libraries, and on the internet, my goal here is to reveal it to you, and to demystify some of their devious practices.

Studying past climates is an area of strong interest for climatologists. The arrogant bastards even gave it a name, calling it climate reconstruction, or in the case of climate records lasting millions of years, Paleoclimate reconstruction. The most reliable and versatile measurements of past climate, including temperature, precipitation, humidity, and wind velocity, are those taken using modern weather instruments. These have been giving us an increasingly detailed global coverage of weather data over the past century, often on a daily, or even hourly basis. Coverage has been better over land than over oceans, particularly in developed countries. Since the early 1970's, we have also had weather satellites in orbit that are particularly effective at providing a large-scale view of weather patterns, along with accurate measurements of sea level and ocean surface temperature. Instrumented weather balloons have been employed widely to measure atmospheric characteristics at various altitudes above the Earth's surface. Atmospheric composition, including carbon dioxide, methane, and particulate levels, has been measured on a daily basis for several decades, most notably at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii (beginning in 1958). As much as I'd like to criticize the quality of these data sets, that would require a lot of effort without much payout, since they are surprisingly good. But one criticism is more obvious—the use of weather instruments is extremely limited in time. Reliable weather instrumentation has been around for a matter of decades, while climate has been around for billions of years. So when scientists talk about past climates, the only part of the past they know for certain is at most, the last hundred or hundred and fifty years.

To go back further, scientists use other methods called proxies. "Historical sources" are a type of proxy that includes a whole range of quasi-legitimate things, like mariner's logs and agricultural records, along with touchy-feely crap like diaries, fiction, and even paintings. For example, records of early harvests suggest early frosts and a colder climate, while early planting dates indicate warmer springs. Consistent records for the dates of the Kyoto Cherry Blossom Festival, a pretty fruity [44] indicator of the arrival of spring, go back at least 600 years, and irregular records go back even further. Mariners [45], while not singing jaunty sea shanties, staging mutinies, or sodomizing each other, tend to write about weather and sea conditions in ship's logs. Old paintings of winter scenes and frozen canals in places that no longer have harsh winters, like wherever the hell Flemish painters [46] come from, indicate colder temperatures historically. In fact, paintings and descriptions of cold conditions in Europe and North America between about 1400 and 1850, ultimately led scientists to name this period the "Little Ice Age [47]".

Climatologists don't stop there. They try to benefit from the fact that a lot of things on Earth occur in layers that are conveniently arranged by age— with a few exceptions, the deeper you go, the older the layer. This principle works for tree rings, glacial ice, sediments, and sedimentary rocks. Dendrochronology is the use of tree rings to study past environments. Every kid knows that you can tell the age of a tree by counting the number of rings, but scientists claim that the rings themselves store information about climate. They assume that thicker rings mean better growing conditions, including a longer growing season and more precipitation. These measurements can go back as far as 5000 years for long-lived species like bristlecone pine. But of course these measurements don't take into account other factors that affect tree growth, including insect infestations, disease, and natural disasters. They also tend to work best in specific regions, rather than providing a broader picture of global climate.

Ice cores are a common method used to reconstruct climate for periods going back tens of thousands of years. They are particularly effective for measuring levels of atmospheric gases and particulates during a given time period, because glacial ice typically incorporates air bubbles as it forms. Scientists have used ice-core records to show that greenhouse gas concentrations have varied quite a bit during the past million years or so. They have also demonstrated the direct correlation between greenhouse-gas concentration and atmospheric temperature. But, get ready to have your mind blown [48]! Scientists really stepped in it this time, because historically, the concentration of greenhouse gases has risen _after_ the rise in temperature. In other words, global warming _causes_ an increase in greenhouse gases. This may occur for a variety of reasons, most notably because carbon dioxide is released from oceans as they warm up, and methane deposits (called clathrates) found on continental shelves and in permafrost become volatile as temperature rises. This is clearly, unmistakably, very, very good news because it makes scientists' lives miserable while posing only a moderate to serious additional risk of catastrophic global climate change in the near future.

Sediments are small particles of rock or organic matter that are deposited on land or on the sea bed, potentially being cemented together to form sedimentary rock. Sediments can be used in a variety of ways to tell us about climate. In lakes and marshes, deposits of pollen can be analyzed to indicate the types of vegetation that were present in a particular area at a particular time. A shift from a temperate forest to a grassland would likely indicate that the climate became significantly drier, while a shift in the same forest toward a Northern (boreal) forest type would indicate that it became significantly colder. Of course, to figure this out, scientists (or palynologists, as pollen specialists are known) must spend countless hours on the phone from the faculty lounge telling their graduate students to look through microscopes to identify, catalogue, and count each pollen grain. In addition, the overall amount of organic matter that is deposited in lakes can give an indication of the amount of rainwater runoff and the level of plant productivity on land.

Isotopes found in sediments can also be used to reconstruct past climates, as discussed in an earlier chapter by my colleague and wingman, Hugh J. Richard. The best-known example involves analysis of the isotopic ratio of oxygen-16 and oxygen-18. As Hugh explained, H216O evaporates more easily than H218O, and is therefore much more abundant in ice sheets. As the Earth's temperature drops, ice sheets tend to grow, removing more and more H216O from the oceans, and leaving behind the heavier H218O. The ratio of these two isotopes in seawater, which scientists quantify using an index called Delta18O, provides an approximate measure of the Earth's temperature at a given time in Earth's history [49]. Unfortunately, we don't have ancient seawater lying around that we can measure, but we do have sediment—carbonate sediment, made of CaCO3, to be precise. The interesting thing about carbonate sediment is that it is produced by marine life, primarily the trillions of shelled microscopic plankton that float around in the world's oceans [50]. If you are an environmental chemist or you know the alphabet [51], you may have noticed that CaCO3 includes the letter O, for oxygen. It turns out that, once you do some fancy math to account for differences in species and their temperature-dependent uptake rates, the oxygen isotope ratio in carbonate sediment is proportional to that in the ocean water. Therefore, by digging down through carbonate sediment layers and measuring the Delta18O, scientists can construct a fairly accurate picture of Earth's climate history for tens of millions of years. Specific time periods can be assigned to different sediment layers using a combination of radiometric techniques and geological rules regarding how sediment is deposited.

Of course, each of these methods provides us only with bits and pieces over different time periods. Some of the methods provide globally-averaged data, while others provide regional data. Some show temperature, whereas others show rainfall. Some are long-term and some are short-term. Where does the big-picture come from?

It turns out that scientists have millions of data points. What's more, scientists actually talk to each other [52]. The current understanding of past climates is based upon a combination of all of these available data sets, which are repeatedly cross-referenced against each other. Yet scientists are continuing to waste valuable time and money gallivanting around the world's ice caps, swamps, and ocean bottoms trying to find even more evidence of climate change, most of which we don't want to hear. We get it already [53]!

### Notes

40. Egos

41. Closing your eyes, covering your ears, and yelling really loud can help you avoid this.

42. Sorry Mozambique, your subsurface geology is not compatible with our vision of democracy.

43. The term "literally" is used non-figuratively here.

44. I apologize if any homos find this pun offensive. Also, _call me_!

45. I'm including you, Alex Rodriguez. No one hated you when you were in Seattle, maybe because no one knows Seattle has a professional baseball team.

46. Not to be confused with "Phlegmish Painters", the first MOMA exhibit ever to be shut down by the Centers for Disease Control.

47. The Leo Sayer of glacial advances.

48. Your mind should leave the money on the nightstand.

49. For those of you still studying for that geochemistry exam: Have you called Sbarro yet?

50. These days most of the production has been outsourced to Chinese plankton. Need more information? Also outsourced. Phone the plankton call center in Mumbai.

51. If you live in Louisiana and you're not an environmental geochemist, the answer is probably no.

52. Editor's note: Conspire is the correct term.

53. Get what?

# Chapter 9

### Modeling: A Poor Excuse for Science

### Dr. Heathcliff Huxter, Sexist, Sociopath

Imagine two people calling themselves scientists. John wears a lab coat and safety glasses and does experiments by mixing chemicals using beakers and test tubes. His discoveries benefit the petrochemical industry and therefore, all of mankind. John uses his paycheck to responsibly purchase a home in the suburbs, a nice American car for himself, and a minivan for his wife and two children. Jane, on the other hand, runs digital models of the Earth's climate system on a supercomputer, which show that carbon dioxide is warming the atmosphere and the oceans. Her research hurts the economy. She rides a bike [54] to work and uses her handsome university paycheck to take her "partner" and their adopted child to the new vegan restaurant north of campus. By the way, her "partner" is an "artist". Which of these people is a scientist?

Well obviously John is the scientist, and also a patriotic American.

"But Jane is a lady scientist!" you might argue. Sure...I am willing to be PC and acknowledge that broads can be scientists, on account of women's lib, and some of them might even practice "alternative" lifestyles [55]. But the thing is, John is doing experiments on real-world objects, whereas Jane is just inventing an imaginary world and playing computer games with it. And her results hurt America. How is that science? If Jane were a real lady scientist, she should be performing experiments, like doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere and seeing what happens. That would prove that climate change isn't real and that human beings aren't causing it.

Climatologists who use computer models try to justify their work it all the time. Allow me to quote an e-mail message an intern paraphrased and typed out for me:

"Climatologists use an incredibly detailed and ever-evolving knowledge of the Earth's climate system to mathematically re-create the planet's atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere, biosphere, and land surface. Fundamental relationships in physics, including the equations of motion and laws of thermodynamics are integrated with empirically-derived numerical models of processes on Earth. The complexity of these models makes them computationally intensive for even a small portion of the Earth's surface over a very short period of time. But the computational requirements increase exponentially as these models are scaled-up to cover the entire planet and increasingly large durations of time. These climate models, also known as general circulation models (GCM's) can be used to predict future climates, and also to isolate and identify the key factors involved in climate change in the past."

That sounds pretty fancy, but is that science? Let's consider some of the "results".

It turns out that climatologists can predict past climates just fine. Of course they can—they already happened. But, what are the results when they try to identify the factors that caused fluctuations in temperature during the past century or two? Well, there's really no big surprise here, they find that the increase in temperature that has (apparently) been observed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution can only be reproduced by the computer models when human emissions of carbon dioxide are included. Variations in solar radiation, volcanic activity, atmospheric aerosols, ocean circulation, and other factors indicate that global temperature should not be gradually increasing as a result of natural factors. So humans are causing global warming. Of course! The computer models are just as liberal and anti-American as the climatologists who create them.

What do the models say about the Earth's temperature in the future? Look for yourself (Fig. 6) Apparently, it'll be warmer. By quite a bit— 3-4°C, over land surfaces, and 4-6°C in the Arctic, by 2050. Of course they say that. That's what happens when you turn supercomputers over to a bunch of liberals. Show me one planet that has ever gotten warmer because of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [56].

Figure 6: Estimated surface air temperature change by 2050, compared to 1971-2000, according to model output from the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

### Notes

54. Probably one of those stupid looking incumbent bikes.

55. Completely disgusting and corrosive to the fabric of the American flag itself, unless engaged in by two consenting adult actresses and posted on the web for profit.

56. Venus?
Special Feature: A Scientist Explains Why You Shouldn't Listen to Scientists. Part 2: Scientists Are Godless Megalomaniacs

### Dr. Jack Tupp, Scientist, Zealot, Presidential Candidate

We have now established that scientists are out of touch with society, but unfortunately, it gets worse. I don't want to offend anyone, but scientists are godless megalomaniacs. They are sociopaths of the highest order. These statements are completely uncontroversial and require no further authentication, yet I feel compelled to elaborate by explaining how science works, or at least, how it is supposed to work. I will then demonstrate both why science itself is bad, and also how scientists have perverted it for their own ends—to further their careers, to garner respect, and to influence the political process. In short, to achieve power, fame, and fortune [57].

Science is difficult to define, but as a scientist, I know it when I see it. And I certainly know what science is supposed to be. Science is supposed to be an ordered body of knowledge about the universe. It is supposed to be a rigorous set of methods that guide humankind's exploration of nature. Many academics also argue that science is also a philosophy—a way of viewing the world in which processes are expected to operate within a regular and predictable framework of physical laws. In other words, there is no room in science for the paranormal or the supernatural; neither is there room for miracles, or even for God Himself. This philosophy implies that humans can understand, explain, and even predict everything in the Universe, _if adequate information is available_. Of course, that is the catch—science works only if we have adequate information, and we seldom do.

There is another way to say this. It is the ultimate aim of scientists to rob the universe of its sanctity by reducing it to a series of meaningless interactions among matter and energy. In practice, this often consists of little more than simplification and generalization. Scientists attempt to explain the world by breaking it into individual parts that they can study and understand one piece at a time. They then try to place all of these individual components into a broader framework of understanding. At that point, scientists make a giant leap of faith—they simply assume that the resulting theories and laws can be extended to explain how the universe always works. Everywhere. They say that the "laws" established by science are universal. Scientists claim that the universe must obey their rules. Scientists claim to be God!

Obviously, then, scientists are arrogant, godless people. Let's take a look at some of the tools they use to practice their craft. Perhaps one of the most effective methods scientists use to control bland and soulless world of their creation is general systems theory (GST). Although many concepts in GST have undoubtedly been around since the inception of science, the theory was not formalized until the work of ecologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy [58] during the 1950's and 60's. In GST, a system consists of an input or inputs, and a set of variables that interact to produce an output or outputs. We can use a Chinese factory as an example of a system in the real world. The factory (system) consists of poorly paid workers (variables) that interact with substandard machinery (another variable) and inferior materials (input) to produce lead-laden toys (output) for American children. Systems may consist of virtually any number of variables, as long as there are at least two [59]. The interaction between these variables may be simple and linear as in the previous example; an increase in the number of hours worked would cause a corresponding increase in toy output—perhaps each additional hour worked results in 1,000 more toys. There are many scientific examples of linear systems. Chemical reactions are often fairly straightforward, such as the production of ozone in the atmosphere. This occurs when oxygen molecules, consisting of two oxygen atoms, are broken apart by ultraviolet light. The single oxygen atoms that are created are captured by other oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, forming a molecule with three oxygen atoms (which is known as ozone or O3). In simple situations such as this, general systems theory, for all its flaws, does sometimes work.

The problem is that processes within Earth systems are seldom simple. They tend to be non-linear and exceedingly convoluted. Non-linear, in this case, means that a particular change in input does not lead to a predictable change in output. Let's look at an example, in honor of all of the hard-working American entrepreneurs and salespeople. Anyone who sells cars on commission knows that each hour worked does not translate to a corresponding number of cars sold. A salesperson could work an eighty-hour week without selling a single car, then come back the following week and sell two cars in the first hour. The reason for this "non-linearity" is that there are countless factors that determine whether people will buy a car, or for that matter, visit a car dealership in the first place. Car sales are influenced by demographic changes, the economy, the time of year, the weather, passing fancy, Matthew McConaughey [60], and countless other factors, only some of which are predictable [61]. Experienced salespeople know generally when to expect sales to be up or down, but they still cannot predict future sales with great certainty.

Many systems in earth science are non-linear as well. An increase in solar radiation, for example, does not lead to a proportional increase in temperature, because temperature is also influenced by countless other variables, such as the type of surface cover, the composition of the atmosphere, and wind circulation. Similarly, an increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere does not lead to a predictable increase in global temperature, as global warming fanatics seem to think. Plant growth, cloud cover, and even ocean currents can change as a result of a change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, and all of those changes affect temperature. Despite these crippling limitations, scientists have applied GST willy-nilly to virtually all areas of physical and social science. Earth scientists, in particular, have abused the whole concept of systems theory by trying to represent our complicated planet by means of a handful of variables and interactions.

Despite the tremendous oversimplifications made by scientists, they have nonetheless managed to make their work seem complicated by using an excessive amount of technical jargon and obscure references to people and things that no one has ever heard of. Simply put, scientists are the Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheims of difficult language and obscure references. Even the seemingly straightforward field of General Systems Theory has been obfuscated by a needlessly cumbersome lexicon. Still, it's worth wading through a little of it so that we can more closely examine how scientists have manipulated GST to help to create the environmental crisis. We'll begin by discussing how different types of systems are classified. One way to do so is to classify them on the basis of inputs and outputs. In an _open system_ , matter and energy can freely enter and leave the system, whereas in a _closed system_ , energy comes and goes, but matter remains within the system's boundaries. Many earth systems, including ecosystems, are considered open. On the other hand, the earth itself is essentially a closed system. Meteorites enter, and spacecraft leave, but these are infinitesimally small in comparison to the mass of the Earth, so scientists usually ignore them [62]. The fact that the earth is a closed system may seem trivial, but it is vitally important within the context of environmentalism, because it says that almost everything that will ever be on Earth is already here in one form or another. Or, to put this another way, all of the basic elements that make up the planet, and everything on it, were already here prior to the Industrial Revolution, and even during the age of the dinosaurs. Despite the cries of environmentalists who claim we are polluting the planet, humans have never created carbon, or lead, or arsenic, or mercury. They have been on Earth since the day it was created [63].

Another way scientists classify systems is by their level of understanding of them. _White-box systems_ are those whose inner-workings are fully understood. Although a claim of full understanding sets the bar rather high, there are a few white-box systems in nature, including the motion of the planets in the solar system [64]. _Black-box systems_ are those for which the inputs and outputs are known, but whose inner workings are a mystery. Some of the best examples of black box systems come from the field of public health, where researchers commonly identify murky associations between disease and a wide-range of variables, such as geographical location, water quality, air quality, and lifestyle. They then jump to wild conclusions regarding which variable causes which particular disease, without being able to explain how. A perfect case study involves the World Health Organization (WHO), whose latest attempt to oppress the global population involved releasing the results of a study suggesting a link between cell phone use and brain cancer. Of course, even the authors of the study were forced to confess that they could not explain medically HOW cell phone use causes the growth of tumors. Yet the WHO was only too eager to publicize these misleading results, despite the fact that they were dealing with a black-box system. Since the WHO is an agency connected with the United Nations, it is safe to say that they did so because it fit their anti-capitalist agenda. Lying between the two extremes are g _ray-box_ systems, whose inner workings are understood only partially. Most earth systems fall into this category. Let me emphasize that—scientists, for all of their intellectual bluster, don't completely understand how most Earth systems work!

Not surprisingly, scientists use a litany of abstruse terms to describe states and processes within systems. Perhaps the most familiar is _equilibrium_ , which is a state in which forces are balanced, and as a result, in which no permanent change occurs. Many different types of equilibrium have been defined. _Static equilibrium_ refers specifically to a system in which there is no change at all—a situation that is seldom encountered in environmental science. This is a crucial point—things on Earth are _supposed_ to change, including ecosystems and climate. _Dynamic equilibrium_ is therefore usually a much better representation of reality than static equilibrium. In dynamic equilibrium, forces are balanced in the long term, but short-term fluctuations occur around some average state. This is how the Earth's climate works. The temperature might go up for a few years, decades, or even centuries, but eventually the temperature will cool. Change is natural, contrary to the pleas of the alarmist scientific community, who get worked up to a boil over the alleged change of Earth's climate. Long story short...the Earth has always changed, and will never stop changing, no matter what our humble species does.

What forms of change are we talking about? Many of these changes are slow and gradual, but under the right circumstances, a system may change suddenly and dramatically when a _threshold_ is reached. Thresholds go by different names in different contexts—for example, the term "tipping point" became popular as a result of a book by Malcolm Gladwell [65]. Thresholds can be problematic from the standpoint of prediction since they cannot always be identified before they are crossed. Earthquakes cannot be forecasted with any accuracy because they are the result of a threshold being reached. Faults may remain locked for decades, or even centuries while stress builds up as a result of slow tectonic-plate movement. Eventually, a rupture or a slip will occur, causing an earthquake, when the accumulated stress becomes sufficient along the fault line. It is exceedingly difficult to measure the level of stress along most faults, as well as nearly impossible to know what the threshold level will be for any given fault line. Volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, and even rain, are examples of thresholds in nature.

The Earth's climate system includes many thresholds, which can cause global temperature to rise or fall drastically. Climatologists handle the problem of thresholds in one of two ways. Some climate scientists routinely ignore them and issue their dire climate predictions, unencumbered by the uncertainty of thresholds. Other scientists use the concept of thresholds to their advantage; they support their global warming agenda by saying that the Earth may reach a crucial threshold where the oceans will have no more capacity for carbon dioxide, or that ice shelves may collapse, or even that ocean circulation may change. Other authors will discuss some of these mechanisms later.

Of course, we've only scratched the surface so far; Earth systems are far more complicated than this [66]. Feedback is a complex process within systems by which an initial change in a system triggers internal adjustments to how the system works. What this means is that input to a system does not always tell us what the output will be. There are two types of feedback—positive and negative. Responses that enhance the initial change are known as _positive feedback_ ; for example, as the Earth gets colder, ice and snow cover increase, causing more solar energy to be reflected back to space, which causes the Earth to become even colder. Responses that reduce the effects of the initial change are known as _negative feedback_ ; for example, as the Earth gets colder, less evaporation occurs, fewer clouds form, and more sunlight reaches the Earth's surface, warming the planet. Leave it to scientists to confuse everyone, though. Earth scientists tell us that in their world, positive feedback is bad, because it is destabilizing, whereas negative feedback is good, because it tends to keep things as they are. This is yet another example of the incomprehensibility of the world of scientists, where cooling causes warming, positive is bad, and negative is good. Need I remind you why we shouldn't be listening to these people?

So pervasive is the idea of general systems theory that earth scientists commonly describe the planet itself as the "Earth system". They often subdivide this earth system into four main components, known as the lithosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, and the biosphere. The _lithosphere_ refers to the solid earth—the rocks and minerals that make up the Earth's crust and interior. The _atmosphere_ refers to the thin layer of gases that surround the solid Earth. The _hydrosphere_ is the water, in all its forms—solid, liquid, and gas; fresh, and salty. The _biosphere_ refers to all of the planet's life. These "spheres" comprise quite a convenient classification system—geologists tend to focus on the lithosphere, climatologists on the atmosphere, oceanographers and hydrologists on the hydrosphere, and biologists on the biosphere. Not surprisingly, this classification system, designed primarily to allow scientists to mark their territory, doesn't really work in the real world. Consider soil. To which of these "spheres" does it belong? The surprising answer is that it belongs to all of the spheres—it is made up of rock fragments (lithosphere), organic matter (biosphere), water (hydrosphere), and air (atmosphere). Apparently scientists, with all of their emphasis on systems theory, can't even properly identify a real system.

Scientists are generally expected to follow _the scientific method_ , a framework for understanding the world that most of us learned about in high school. The scientific method begins when a researcher devises a hypothesis to explain some aspect of the real world. For example, a chemist may hypothesize that adding Chemical A to Chemical B will cause an explosion. He will then perform experiments, in this case, combining the two chemicals, usually several times under a variety of conditions, and watch what happens. After recording and carefully considering the results, he will either accept or reject his original hypothesis. If the predicted explosions occurred, he accepts his hypothesis [67], which then may go on to become a scientific law. If the explosions did not occur, he concludes that his initial hypothesis was incorrect, and may then modify his hypothesis based on what he has learned, and run more tests [68].

The scientific method works fairly well in chemistry and physics, but does not apply very well to Earth science. The problem is that for the most part, scientists can't conduct experiments on the planet. Not one scientist who says that the Earth is getting warmer because humans are increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere has ever been able to test this hypothesis directly. To do so, he [69] would have to actually change greenhouse gas levels on the planet and then measure temperature change. Thus, people who study the Earth call themselves "scientists" without actually following the scientific method. So what do Earth scientists do instead? Most of them make observations and measurements of the planet, and then try to shape conclusions that fit both the data they collect, and more notably, the outcomes they desire. In the case of climate change, most scientists have managed to come to the conclusion that the Earth is warming because they have chosen to focus primarily on data that supports this conclusion. They have completely ignored the fact that some portions of some data sets from some parts of the world actually indicate that the planet is cooling.

Some scientists have become even more creative in using "science" to support their global warming agenda. They have created their own virtual worlds upon which they can experiment—computer models. By using these models, scientists have been able to invent simplified versions of the real world that they can then manipulate to "prove" that human activity is harmful. Obviously, as anyone with an advanced degree in systems analysis realizes, models are actually an assemblage of whatever variables the modeler wants to include, related to each other in whatever way the modeler chooses. If a modeler wishes to represent the atmosphere by applying a finite difference method to a geographical grid, instead of employing a spectral methods with a Gaussian Grid, he may do so. The only people who would ever know would be a few hundred other scientists, who are sure to be uncritical of a colleague. Thus, climatologists have created their own worlds, designed to their own specifications, and hoodwinked the public into believing that they accurately represent the real Earth. Scientists truly are playing God.

How do scientists get away with all of this? How do they misuse basic tools like the scientific method and systems theory, and indeed completely invent outcomes, and get away with it? To this end, the scientific community has done its best to be secretive toward the general public regarding its methods, its results, and above all, its agenda. Published scientific papers are written and professional presentations are conducted in a highly-specialized fashion that is intended to be virtually inaccessible to the public. If a non-scientist wishes to attend a climatology conference, he can't, without paying a registration fee. I've given numerous examples of how scientists have created an abstruse language of their own to describe even simple concepts such as systems theory. Scientists operate in this conspicuously surreptitious manner to hide their questionable methods and to disguise the fact that they do so little that is beneficial to anyone. The public would surely be aghast if they found out what scientists really do.

Occasionally, a courageous non-scientist steps up and challenges the scientific orthodoxy. Recently, Senator Joe Barton took Secretary of Energy Steven Chu to task when he tried to bamboozle the Senate Committee with science. Barton questioned global warming by following an irrefutable line of reasoning. To paraphrase the Senator—Oil forms in warm places, there's a lot of oil in Alaska, therefore Alaska used to be warm, _ergo,_ global warming is not a problem! If you find this logic difficult to follow, it only attests to Senator Barton's intellectual acuity. Chu, a former Nobel Prize winner, squirmed uncomfortably and tried to dodge the question by outlining the theory of plate tectonics. Plate tectonics is a theory that is so cutting-edge that it barely predates the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and so advanced that many scientists working today did not fully understand it until they reached eighth grade! But brave Senator Barton persisted. Following Chu's jargon-laden dissertation on plate tectonics and continental drift, which lasted a significant portion of a minute, Barton put him in his place by remarking flippantly "So it [Alaska] just drifted up there?" Steven Chu had no response, and just rolled his eyes as a sign of respect. Our nation is extremely fortunate to have such a critical thinker as Joe Barton as the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee.

Senator Barton sets an example that I encourage everyone to follow. Everyone should take scientists to task regarding their bold claims about the planet. If scientists wish to engage in meaningless intellectual exercises in their ivory towers (as most of them do) it is merely a minor waste of society's resources. But scientists have attempted to tell people what to believe and how to live their lives. They have tried to force the government to institute a radical environmental agenda, compelling people to drive fuel-efficient cars, and perhaps worse still, forcing businesses to institute job-killing anti-pollution measures that scientists claim will protect water and air quality. Some scientists have become so monumentally arrogant that they feel they can speak for ordinary Americans. Americans don't want scientists speaking for them. Americans want lower taxes, and less regulation. In short, Americans want freedom, and not some ivory tower scientist telling them what the best thing is. The best thing for Americans is to allow them to live their own lives.

The branches of science that generate most of the environmental outcry are yet another reason we should not listen to scientists. The alleged occurrence of climate change is really driving the radical environmentalists' bus right now. But here's some good news. Climatology is a science that everyone is qualified to conduct on their own. It is not an arcane academic discipline like chemistry or physics, which we seldom encounter in our daily lives. We all experience weather and climate on a daily basis, and often pay close attention to local and national forecasts. We are inundated with news about weather and climate from around the country and around the world. When there are droughts, blizzards, hurricanes, or tornadoes, we hear about them. Furthermore, climate data sets are all over the internet. Anyone with a computer can look up temperature records for every continent on Earth and see for themselves what is going on with the Earth's climate. Why do we need climatologists, when we can see the truth for ourselves?

Admittedly, most of us have real jobs and may not have time to over-analyze and over-scrutinize the data the way scientists do. Nonetheless, I encourage anyone who can break away from doing productive work to look at some climate data. Perhaps perform a fast Fourier transform on _Pinus taeda_ pollen records or create an auto-regressive integrated moving average model based on a time series of Delta18O data. You probably will not find the unequivocal warming trend that all of these scientists are so adamant about. If you are even more ambitious, you can likely find some digitized ice core or sedimentary records and reconstruct Paleo-atmospheric composition to check whether scientists' conclusions are justified. You might be surprised by what you find. The whole situations harkens back to one of Bob Dylan's few meaningful lyrics: "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows". And I'm sure if Bob Dylan were alive today, he'd agree that we certainly don't need scientists to tell us how the world works.

### Notes

57. Those five-figure salaries don't pay themselves.

58. In German, this means "Ludwig from Bertalanffy". You're welcome.

59. Like a Mormon marriage.

60. I'm a sucker for washboard abs and incoherent rambling.

61. Unlike Matthew McConaughey

62. Much to the annoyance of the astronauts on board the spacecraft.

63. By God.

64. No thanks to the Catholic Church.

65. The British guy from Franklin & Bash?

66. Almost as complicated as formatting in Word, but with some underlying logic.

67. Or the executor of his will does.

68. Or just explode things the American way, with Jack Daniels and gas-station fireworks.

69. I said "scientist", not "scientistess".

# Chapter 10

### The Climate has Never Not Changed. Ever!

### Dr. S. Tyrone Coldair, DFA, Pundit Extraordinaire

As the previous chapters have made clear, climate change is not caused by humans. We know this because climate change has been occurring throughout the Earth's history (4.5 billion years, allegedly), and humans have been here for less than one million years. If climate change occurred before humans even got here, how can climate change be caused by humans? This same logic, by the way, proves that humans cannot cause mass extinctions, and guns cannot kill people [70]. Figure 7 shows fluctuations in temperature throughout Earth's "recent" history—approximately the past 540 million years. Why only the past 540 million years?

Figure 7: Estimated global temperature during the past 545 million years.

Believe it or not, geologists and climatologists consider this the "recent past" because it marks the beginning of a reliable fossil record and environmental conditions that are somewhat similar to those we experience today. Before that, things were really nuts. On the very early Earth, there was no crust, no ocean, no moon, no life, and only a very thin atmosphere made of hydrogen and helium. During the first few hundred million years, a lot changed. Volcanoes erupted like crazy and the planet was bombarded with meteorites and comets, one of which was sufficiently large to dislodge enough material to form the Moon. The first atmosphere was "blown" into space by the solar wind, and was replaced by a dense and toxic mix of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, and water vapor. Water from comets and from erupting volcanoes formed the oceans, and the surface cooled to form the crust. Soon after, perhaps almost four billion years ago, primitive, single-celled, chemosynthetic life originated. These single cells consisted of an undifferentiated mass of biological material, and used chemical reactions to derive enough energy to support biological functions. Chemosynthetic organisms are still around today, but live primarily in Earth's extreme environments, such as around hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean. They are now so rare, because about 2.5 billion years ago, cyanobacteria developed the ability to photosynthesize, which is a much more efficient process. It also fundamentally changed the atmosphere. Photosynthesis consumes carbon dioxide and produces oxygen as a byproduct. Cyanobacteria ultimately became the greatest atmospheric polluters in the history of the planet [71]. It took several hundred million years, but by about 540 million years ago, and possibly sooner, they converted the Earth's second atmosphere into the nitrogen and oxygen rich atmosphere we have today.

We don't know a lot about Earth's climate during the planet's earliest years, because there's not a lot of evidence preserved. However, we do know that the planet probably had wide temperature swings as a result of the drastic changes in the composition of the atmosphere. There is some evidence that the Earth may have frozen over almost completely at least twice during this time, likely around 740 million years and 630 million years ago—a phenomenon known as "snowball Earth".

On the other hand, the temperature has been much more stable during the past 540 million years, although it has varied almost constantly. As the title of the chapter so cleverly says, the climate has never not changed. There have been at least three Ice Ages—sustained periods of millions of years when there is continuous ice and snow cover over measureable parts of the Earth—beginning about 460 million years ago, 300 million years ago, and a few million years ago. You read that correctly [72]—we are in an Ice Age right now [73]! The Earth has also experienced periods that were completely ice free, possibly including the entire Age of Dinosaurs, from nearly 250 million years ago to 65 million years ago. And we're talking about global warming now!? Not compared to then. If it was good enough for the dinosaurs, it should be good enough for us [74].

Even if we consider just the past couple of million years, which comprise the latest and current Ice Age, we see wide variations in temperature (Fig. 8). In fact, a mere 125,000 years ago, it was warmer than it is today. Just twenty thousand years ago, half of North America was under a mile of ice [75] and woolly mammoths roamed around like they owned the place [76].

Figure 8: Variation in temperature and ice volume on Earth during the last 450,000 years, on the basis of Antarctic ice cores. (Source: Robert Rohde, Global Warming Art)

Even more recently, temperature has been shown to vary widely. Roman emperors were able to enjoy open-air orgies without embarrassing shrinkage [77] because the Earth was experiencing a warm phase. Following several hundred cold years, outdoor shenanigans returned during the Medieval Warm Epoch [78], when even Greenland was somewhat habitable. The Little Ice Age [79] kept open air orgies to a minimum during the 1400-1800's. Now we're warming again. Hmmm...

The point is that temperature has always changed and will always change, whether humans are around or not. To think that humans are responsible for the current warming trend, based on nothing but chemistry and physics and evidence, is laughable. Humans didn't cause it to be warm when the dinosaurs were here, so obviously we aren't causing warming now. Even if it is warming naturally, it's clear that we shouldn't do anything about it. Humans, and more importantly, Americans, need to do exactly what we always do—leave nature alone and just let the planet and all its natural systems carry on completely free from human interference.

### Notes

70. People were dying long before guns were invented. In fact, cavemen died much younger than modern Americans, proving that guns actually make people live longer.

71. In your face America!

72. Who am I kidding, you stopped reading ages ago.

73. So much for global warming.

74. An ankylosaurus in every pot!

75. Unfortunately, Winnipeg didn't stay that way. It is now ice-free thirteen days per year.

76. Until Native Americans crossed the Bering Strait and showed them how shit gets owned, son.

77. Of the penis.

78. Serf's up!

79. The shriveled penis of glacial advances.

# Chapter 11

### The Real Causes of Climate Change

### Dr. Geoffrey Myopia, Scientist, Condescender

As Professor Pissov explained so eloquently in a previous chapter, the Earth's energy budget remains balanced in the long run. All of the energy the Earth receives as shortwave radiation from the sun is either reflected without transferring any energy, or is re-radiated back to space in the form of longwave radiation. As a result of this long-term balance, and several other factors, the Earth's climate has been remarkably consistent for a very, very long time. Specifically, the average global temperature has remained within about 10oC of today's value for the past 500 million years! So really, the Earth's temperature wasn't that much different back when the dinosaurs roamed the global jungles a hundred million. So why is anyone worrying about climate change?

Because they're stupid, that's why. But they're stupid like a fox, because it is true that fairly small global temperature changes can have enormous effects—a few degrees can make the difference between massive ice advances and tropical conditions around the world. But where they're stupid in a far less vulpine manner is in not realizing that there are many reasons the Earth's climate can change. Why do we want to run around saying that humans are causing climate change when other things can cause climate change too? It would be like saying that texting while driving causes traffic accidents, when everybody knows that drinking and driving is what causes traffic accidents [80]. It is simple [81] cause and effect. Here are the things that really cause climate change.

The Sun

Is the sun getting hotter? Yes. Solar output has steadily increased since the sun formed; in fact, the sun emits 30% more energy today than it did three billion years ago. So the Earth is getting hotter because the sun is getting hotter. Case closed.

Figure 9: The Sky (left), The Sun (center), The Sky (right).

Unfortunately, tireless investigation, such as reading the last chapter and looking at a graph (Fig. 10), reveals that the case isn't closed, since there is a minor flaw in this explanation.

Figure 10: Changes in average global temperature throughout Earth's history (Source: Glen Fergus, 2014, via Wikimedia Commons)

Apparently the Earth has NOT been steadily warming even though the sun has been getting hotter. In fact, the temperature has been going up and down like crazy, and it's colder now than it has been for most of the planet's known history. For almost 200 million years, during the age of the dinosaurs and even a little later (250-50 million years ago), there was probably no ice on Earth at all. Being both unable to explain this, and unwilling to show their ignorance [82], scientists have decided to use a fancy name for this phenomenon, calling it the "Faint Young Sun Paradox". Scientists then usually mutter something about "feedback mechanisms" in the climate system, and atmospheric composition and what not.

But rest assured that the sun is far more complicated than that. There are cycles in solar output that appear to be important over shorter time scales. The amount of energy given off by the sun increases as the number of sunspots increases. Sunspot occurrence follows several observable cycles, at 11, 22, 87, 210, and 2,300 years. Temperature on Earth is affected by the number of sunspots; specifically, an increase in the number of sunspots appears to make it hotter on Earth. Of particular note, almost no sunspots were present during the period called the "Little Ice Age [83]", which lasted from about 1450 to 1850 AD. So it is therefore very compelling to blame the warming trend the Earth has experienced during the past 150 years on an increase in sunspots. This explanation would be even compelling-er if we had actually seen an unusually large number of sunspots during this time period. We haven't, so scientists have been adamant in saying that the warming has not been caused by unusual solar activity. Then again it's only prudent [84] to ask whether scientists have bothered to check the back of the sun. There could be all kinds of crazy shit going on back there [85].

The Wandering Earth

A change in solar output is by no means the only astronomical mechanism that can cause climate change—the Earth's position relative to the sun is also important, and it does change. The Earth rotating on its axis gives us night and day, and its annual revolution around the sun gives us seasons. However, most people don't know about periodic cycles in the Earth's orbit over much longer periods of time. The first, known as _eccentricity_ [86], involves a change in shape of the Earth's path around the sun from more elliptical to more circular. These changes occur over time-scales of 100,000 and 400,000 years, causing differences in solar radiation reaching the planet to be either more or less extreme. The second form of variability involves the Earth's _tilt_ on its axis. Tilt is the primary cause of seasons on Earth. Most geography students [87] learn very early on that the Earth is tilted at an angle of 23.5°, but this varies between 22° and 24.5° over a timescale of 41,000 years. Greater tilt causes more extreme seasons, so winters are coldest and summers are hottest when the Earth's tilt is 24.5°. The third source of variation, known as the _precession of the equinoxes_ , is entirely self-explanatory if you already know what it is. In short, it affects the time of year when the Earth is closest to the sun, and is important over a timescale of 23,000 years.

The changes in the Earth's orbit just described are known as Milankovitch Cycles, in honor of Milutin Milankovitch, the mathematician whose voice inspired the popular breakfast cereal character, Count Chocula [88]. Milankovitch Cycles are thought to be the most important mechanism driving glacial advances and retreats during the past two and a half million years, because they affect the temperature contrast between summer and winter. Ice sheets grow when more ice accumulates during the winter than can melt during the summer. When seasons are extreme, summers are hot, and a lot of ice melts. Ice accumulation, on the other hand, requires not only below-freezing temperatures, but also adequate snowfall. When winters are very cold, the air can hold little moisture, and snowfall is often reduced. Therefore, ice sheets usually shrink when summers are very hot and winters are very cold. By contrast, they grow when seasons are less extreme, leading to glacial advances known by scientists as "glaciations", and by normal people as "Ice Ages" (Fig. 11). So good news climate change alarmists! The Earth's tilt is decreasing, and a new "Ice Age" is on the way sometime in the next few millennia to relieve us of all of this global warming nonsense. Who has the last laugh now? [89]

Figure 11: The Pleistocene Glaciation (approximation)

Plate Tectonics and Continental Drift

The Earth's rigid lithosphere is not static and continuous, but instead consists of a series of "plates" (Fig. 12) that float slowly around on top of the Earth's semi-molten asthenosphere, generating earthquakes, creating mountain ranges, and changing the position of continents. The position of the continents can have an important influence on climate. Scientists have introduced the Polar Position Hypothesis, which suggests that large-scale glaciation can only occur on Earth when there are continental landmasses located near the Poles. Once ice sheets begin to grow on continents, global temperature continues to cool because ice reflects an increasing proportion of incoming solar energy. In fact, during the Age of Dinosaurs, between about 225 million and 65 million years ago, there were no land masses near the poles, and there may have been no permanent ice on Earth at all.

Figure 12: The Pacific Tectonic Plate (close-up). Not shown: Other tectonic plates.

Precipitation patterns can also be influenced by the change in continental positions. Researchers speculate that large-scale monsoon circulation dominated when all landmasses were joined to form the supercontinent of Pangaea (300-175 million years ago), causing extreme seasonal shifts in wind direction and rainfall. And by the way, humans don't control the position of the continents.

The Ocean

The oceans (Fig. 13) are an extremely important element of the Earth's climate system. It is difficult to quantify precisely how significant they are, but we do know that oceans are responsible for about one-half of the heat transported from the tropics toward the poles. There is also a constant exchange of heat and moisture between the atmosphere and the oceans, so many scientists prefer to treat the ocean as part of the climate system, rather than just a factor that affects it. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a perfect example of this. The oceanic component is known either as El Niño [90], when there is an increase in water temperature in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, or La Niña, when the water in this region is colder than normal. The atmospheric component of ENSO is known as the Southern Oscillation, which refers to the shift of low pressure, winds, and precipitation eastward across the Equatorial Pacific during El Niño, and westward during La Niña. El Niño events trigger global shifts in atmospheric circulation, producing droughts and wildfires in South-East Asia, Australia, and southern Africa, winter storms and flooding in the Southwestern United States and Western South America, and unusual warmth in Arctic regions of North America. The effects of La Niña are roughly the opposite of those during El Niño. ENSO circulation fluctuates at irregular intervals of three to ten years. There is some evidence that El Niño may be the dominant mode of circulation when global temperature is high, which suggests that El Niño episodes may become more common as the Earth warms.

Figure 13: The Ocean: The big blue thing in front of job creators' houses.

ENSO is only one of many modes of atmospheric-oceanic coupling that scientists have identified, on a variety of time scales. Let's consider one particular scenario that has been gaining increasing attention within the context of global warming. _Heinrich Events_ are triggered by temperature increases that cause rapid melting of ice in the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. This creates a strong outflow of near-freezing water into the North Atlantic Ocean, which remains atop the sea's surface because it has a very low salinity level. This cold freshwater plume interrupts the warm Gulf Stream, a strong current that transports warm water from the tropics to Northeastern North America and Western Europe. It is hypothesized that this leads to significant cooling and potential ice sheet growth in the landmasses surrounding the Arctic Ocean. This was the scenario depicted in the award-eligible 2004 movie "The Day After Tomorrow". The basic premise of the movie was at least partially-grounded in science, but somehow, Hollywood got the time-scale wrong [91].

The Atmosphere

In 2012, Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum explained to the public and to deaf-eared scientists how he knows that humans are not responsible for climate change [92]. To paraphrase, he asserted that carbon dioxide accounts for only a tiny fraction of the gas in the atmosphere (Fig. 14), and that the amount of carbon dioxide that humans have added to the air is only a small fraction of that. He is absolutely correct. Carbon dioxide now accounts for approximately 400 parts per _million_ (ppm) in the atmosphere—that is only 0.04%! In 1850, in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide concentration is estimated to have been approximately 280 ppm (0.028%). Therefore, at most, humans may be responsible for approximately carbon dioxide that accounts for only 120 parts per _million_ , or 0.012% of the atmosphere. Santorum highlighted what is obvious to everyone but scientists—anything that occurs in extremely low concentrations cannot possibly be harmful. Even allegedly harmful substances like arsenic, lead, and mercury regularly occur in small concentrations in the natural environment, in food, and in drinking water. I've never heard anyone complain that they've been drinking water with a concentration of arsenic of a mere 120 parts per million [93]. The Environmental Protection Agency, with all its alarmism, even permits a level of lead in drinking water of 15,000 parts per trillion, a number which, if you ignore the units of measurement, appears to be more than one hundred times larger than the concentration of carbon dioxide humans have added to the atmosphere.

Figure 14: The Atmosphere: An excellent place to store unwanted smoke.

Nonetheless, atmospheric composition is undoubtedly a crucial and complicated variable that can change on a variety of timescales. Cataclysmic events, such as meteorite impacts and volcanic eruptions, can alter the atmosphere and the Earth's climate within hours, days, or months. These events release airborne particulates into the atmosphere that block incoming solar radiation and cool the planet. Volcanic ash and sulfur dioxide from volcanoes, in particular, can remain in the upper atmosphere for several years and circulate around the globe. For example, the massive eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 caused the "Year Without A Summer", characterized by two June snowstorms that occurred in New England. Furthermore, it is thought that a meteorite impact 65 million years ago on the Yucatan Peninsula ejected sufficient particulate material into the atmosphere to cause the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Carbon deserves a separate paragraph because of its important role in Earth's physical, chemical, and biological processes. These days everybody's talking about "carbon footprints" and "carbon neutral" lifestyles. In doing so, people are focusing almost exclusively on atmospheric carbon dioxide, because of its role as greenhouse gas. However, carbon dioxide accounts for only a tiny fraction of the total carbon on the planet. Let's put it in perspective...on a global scale, the atmosphere contains about 800 million tons (Gigatons or GT) of carbon; plants and soil together contain about 3,300 GT; the ocean contains almost 40,000 GT; and the Earth's crust contains a whopping 70 _million_ GT! Carbon itself is neither created nor destroyed on Earth, either by humans, or by natural processes. Carbon simply changes form via the Earth's carbon cycle. Specifically, it is transferred from the atmosphere to living tissues by photosynthesis, to the ocean through dissolution and biological processes, and to the Earth's crust through chemical weathering and incorporation into carbonate rocks. It is returned to the atmosphere through the decay or burning of organic tissue (including fossil fuels), through oceanic degassing, and through volcanic activity. Human activity plays an important part in the transfer of carbon to the Earth's atmosphere, but it is not the only process involved.

Changes in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are important in climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and water vapor (H2O) levels in the air vary over time, influencing the amount of longwave radiation that is absorbed and recirculated within the Earth's climate system. Humans emit several other greenhouse gases as well, mainly from industrial processes, including hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrous oxide. There are many very complex mechanisms that control the levels of greenhouse gases, some of which we have discussed already. Generally speaking, carbon dioxide levels increase in the atmosphere as a result of increased volcanic activity, increased decay or burning of organic matter, and gas release from the oceans (which is usually caused by warming). Decreases in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere are caused by chemical weathering of silicate rock, increases in plant growth, and through increased absorption by the oceans. According to the BLAG [94] hypothesis, changes in CO2 in the atmosphere over tens of millions of years are caused by changes in the rate of tectonic activity. Specifically, as the rate of seafloor spreading increases, an increased amount of carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere, causing planetary warming. The reverse is true when the rate of chemical weathering of silicate rock increases, which might accompany a period of mountain-building. Under these circumstances, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere combines with water and silicates to create bicarbonate ions. In the oceans, biochemical processes convert bicarbonates into carbonate rock, which traps carbon in the Earth's crust. When the capture of carbon dioxide through weathering exceeds the amount released through tectonic activity, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere decreases, causing cooling. It is thought that the gradual decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and temperature that began about 50 million years may have been caused by increased chemical weathering that was triggered by the uplift of the Himalayas. It appears, therefore, that tectonics and weathering are very powerful mechanism of climate change over very long time scales.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere can, of course, change over much shorter time-scales, particularly in response to the growth cycles of photosynthesizing organisms. Generally, greater plant growth leads to lower levels of atmospheric CO2 as carbon is transferred to the biosphere. In fact, global concentration of CO2 varies seasonally—ordinarily, a minimum value coincides with the growing season in the Northern Hemisphere. Biomass can also be fossilized and stored in the Earth's crust for millions of years, in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas. Much of the world's coal formed during the Carboniferous Period, between 350 and 298 million years B.P., when dense tropical vegetation covered much of the Earth's land area. Most oil and natural gas formed hundreds of millions of years ago from remains of plankton that decomposed in anoxic conditions on the ocean floor. Scientists argue that by burning these fossil fuels, and thereby releasing ancient carbon, human beings have caused global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide to increase. Deforestation has added to this increase. Of course, for reasons Rick Santorum explained, this human-produced carbon dioxide cannot possibly have had an impact.

Methane (CH4) is another important greenhouse gas that has received increased attention in the past few years. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas per unit of mass than carbon dioxide, but its concentration in the atmosphere is about 200 times lower. In addition, methane's residence time in the atmosphere is only about 12 years, as opposed to more than 100 years for CO2. There are a number of natural sources of methane, including wetlands, termites, certain rocks, and the oceans. Human activity accounts for more than 50% of methane production on Earth. The chief sources are emissions from energy generation, and from cattle (both ends). Landfills, waste treatment, and the combustion of biomass are also significant sources.

Water vapor is a very tricky greenhouse gas to deal with, because its concentration can change a great deal over short times and distances. Water in the atmosphere can also have a net cooling effect, depending upon how it behaves. Water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, much like carbon dioxide or methane, so it can have a warming influence on global temperature. But when water vapor condenses to form clouds, sunlight will tend to be reflected back to space, ultimately cooling the planet. Humans have a fairly small direct influence on global water vapor concentration, although deforestation and other forms of land-use change may affect local or regional water budgets.

So hypothetically, if the temperature is changing now, what is causing it? According to scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and halocarbons, are causing the temperature to warm (Fig. 15). Increased solar activity is causing a minor amount of warming as well. Aerosols in the atmosphere and a decrease in planetary albedo are causing some cooling. Since greenhouse gases have the largest effect, these scientists say that overall, the planet is warming as a result of human activity. Remember though, that these are scientists, and many of them are foreigners [95].

Figure 15: Important Influences on climate change in 2005. A positive radiative forcing indicates a factor that causes warming; a negative indicates cooling. (Source: Leland McInnes at the English language Wikipedia).

Clearly, there are numerous climate change mechanisms that interact in very complex ways. As a result, the Earth's climate is variable—it always has been, and likely always will be. Scientists theorize that the Earth may have been almost entirely covered by ice and snow on three occasions, whereas there have been several time periods when the Earth was virtually ice-free. In short, the planet has been both much warmer and much colder than it is today. There is absolutely nothing remarkable about our present climate—in fact, our current global mean temperature appears to be close to the "average" temperature for the last billion years or so, or even a bit colder.

Conclusion

In summary, there are so many things that cause the climate to change that it's silly to focus on humans. In any case, it is obvious from the analysis of all of these different mechanisms that the temperature is historically cold right now and that there's a new glaciation just around the corner. The only reason it's gotten so hot lately is that the sun has been getting hotter for several billion years and will continue to do so until it becomes a red giant, because that's what stars do. We can't do anything about it anyway, because carbon dioxide makes up only a small fraction of the atmosphere and we give it off when we breathe and we can't stop breathing, can we? Plus, carbon dioxide comes from a lot of other sources, including animals and volcanoes. Should we kill all the animals? [96] And who knows what will happen when the continents change positions? We might waste thirty years and billions of dollars transitioning to carbon-neutral energy sources, only to find that in seventy million years America is connected to Asia and the climate is completely different, and we don't have any money left to build a great wall to stop all of the Chinese people from crossing our borders. We should treat climate change the same way we would treat a ticking time bomb. Ignore it and go about our daily lives until we have the information we want. No, the information we, as Americans, deserve!

### Notes

80. And Asians

81. Retarded.

82. Why not embrace it, like Bill O' Reilly?

83. The Ariana Grande of glacial advances.

84. Also idiotic.

85. Also a short-lived PSA slogan encouraging regular proctologic exams.

86. Wealthy planets like Earth experience eccentricity. Poor planets like Mercury are just batshit crazy.

87. Engineering students learn that the Earth tilts whichever way they decide it does. Philosophy students just smoke peyote and make shit up.

88. Thanks Yahoo! Answers!

89. Woolly mammoths of the future?

90. Fun fact: In Season 2, Episode 6 of Fantasy Island, entitled "Mr. Roarke's Illegitimate Peruvian Son", Hervé Villechaize substituted a cry of "El Niño!" for his signature line "De Plane!" Although a production assistant beat him nearly to death for this brazen ad-lib, the line was included in the episode that aired.

91. But they got the love story _sooo_ right.

92. It was a nice break from explaining the evils of contraception.

93. Although morticians have reported that people who have consumed 120 ppm of arsenic sometimes make a groaning sound once rigor mortis has set in (the EPA maximum contaminant level for arsenic is 0.010 ppm).

94. So named because it spells GALB backwards.

95. Including notoriously foul-mouthed Belgians.

96. We tried that.

# Chapter 12

### The Problem with Feedback

### Mike Meeyup, Systems Analyst, Competitive Squirrel Thrower

_Editor's Commentary:_ _Feedback ruins everything for the global warming science cartel. First, scientists don't have a clue what feedback is. They say that negative feedback is good, and positive feedback is bad. They do clearly not be understanding simple English. More importantly, feedback means that nothing causes what you think it causes and maybe nothing causes anything at all. Or everything causes nothing. All I know is that the correct answer is that God did it. If that's good enough for patriotic Americans, then it should be good enough for scientists._

Feedback is the reaction of a system in which the system itself adjusts in such a way as to modify the initial change. Negative feedback counteracts it. Positive feedback reinforces it. A thermostat operates on the principal of negative feedback—if a room gets too cold, the thermostat counteracts the drop in temperature by turning the heat on. Conversely, the heat goes off when it gets too warm. The human body works the same way. When you get hot, you sweat, which cools you. When it gets cold you shiver, which warms you. Negative feedback keeps your body temperature within a narrow range [97] (this is known as homeostasis). The Earth's climate system also has countless negative feedback mechanisms that regulate the atmosphere and its temperature. For example, an increase in temperature often leads to an increase in cloud cover, which can increase the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back to space. That has a cooling effect that counteracts the initial change. Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere increases the rate of plant growth, removing some or all of the excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. An increase in global temperature leads to an increase in the chemical breakdown of silicate rocks, which removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and lowers the temperature. Negative feedback is a part of Earth's natural thermostat, which has kept our planet's temperature remarkably consistent for hundreds of millions of years. In short, negative feedback means that we can do whatever we want, because the Earth's temperature will never ever change. I now understand why scientists say negative feedback is a good thing, and why all patriotic Americans should embrace it as well.

Positive feedback acts in the opposite way. An initial increase (or decrease) causes a further increase (or decrease). The most perfect economic system ever invented, free market capitalism, illustrates this principle very well: it takes money to make money, and therefore the rich get richer [98]. It's only the meddling of the socialist government that interrupts this perfect positive feedback loop of boundless money flowing to society's most deserving citizens and out of the unwashed hands of the grubby masses [99]. But while positive feedback is clearly a guiding principle of a healthy economy, it can be disastrous for Earth systems. For example, if the temperature of the Earth cools, snow [100] and ice are likely to be more abundant. Snow and ice are highly reflective, which can cause the planet to cool further. In fact, scientists believe that the planet has experienced as many as three periods during its history when this "ice-albedo" positive feedback loop caused the surface of the Earth to freeze almost completely, resulting in a condition known as "snowball Earth".

Things get even more complicated when the same mechanism can generate positive and negative feedback responses. As previously discussed, an increase in global temperature can cause an increase in evaporation, which may lead to an increase in cloud cover. Cooling (negative feedback) may result because more solar radiation is reflected back to space, particularly if the clouds are low and thick. Conversely, high clouds tend to reflect very little solar radiation, but they do trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere. Similarly, water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, which also traps heat (longwave radiation). Therefore, the increase in evaporation that occurs as a result of an initial period of warming can either be a positive or a negative feedback mechanism, and it's really, really, really, really hard to predict which one it will be.

In summary, feedback is an important part of all complex systems. It goes beyond simple cause and effect, making prediction of system behavior much more difficult. Positive feedback enhances the initial change within a system, while negative feedback counteracts the initial change. This makes predicting future climate hard. And to quote (from memory) President George F. Kennedy, we shouldn't do things that are hard, like go to the moon. And because of feedback, we shouldn't try to predict climate either.

### Notes

97. For John Kerry, this range is 0.5°C-1.5°C.

98. As it should be.

99. Vote Romney 2012!

100. The Eskimo language has 43 words for "snow", but only six words for "Lime-a-Rita".

# Chapter 13

### A Practical Illustration of Non-Global Warming

### _Dr. Benedict Cumberbatch_ _[101] , Hunk, 1950's slang enthusiast_

Most of us know from personal experience that global warming isn't real. Here I offer my own experience as proof that if anything, the Earth is getting colder, not warmer.

Below is a series of photographs, taken in December, 2013 and January, 2014. Although the photographs are taken in a variety of locations, they are all taken at almost the same longitude, and two of the three are taken outside. They indicate an alarming decrease in temperature and a corresponding, and equally alarming, increase in the number of layers of clothing worn by the author. Clothing-layering is seldom used as an index by climatologists, presumably because their bodies are nowhere near as athletic, chiseled, beautiful, or as gracefully-posed as the author's. The author humbly notes that the loss of Manhattan Island due to supposed climate change would be a marginally more significant loss to humanity than the temporary disappearance of his physique under layers of clothing, although there is likely to be considerable disagreement on this point.

Figure 16: The Author on December 3, 2013. On a beach. A sandy one.

Figure 17: The Author (on the right, next to the small person) on December 25, 2013.

Figure 18: The Author on January 29, 2014.

These photos speak for themselves. The Earth is getting cold fast. But we should not rely exclusively on mere photographic evidence to document the case for the tragic disappearance of the author's unforgettable body [102]. Linear regression is a wonderful statistical tool for turning carefully handpicked data points into indisputable proof. Linear regression is used to show how one variable (the dependent variable) changes as a second variable (the independent variable) changes. The R2 value, which varies from zero to one, shows how strongly the two variables are related. As the R2 value increases, the strength of the relationship increases, with values of 0.7 or higher indicating a strong relationship. Strictly speaking, the previous statement is valid only for sample sizes of thirty or more, but that in no way helps to support my conclusions, so we'll ignore it [103]. When used with a time series, the regression equation ( _y=mx+b_ ) can be used for prediction of the future, which is known as _extrapolation_ by people who prefer mathematical terms that sound like embarrassing bodily functions. Now, there are some people who argue that regression is not a good way to study a time series, which is a technical term for a series of things that happen over time. I choose to ignore those people. Their points are not valid anyway [104]. But rather than just sitting there while I blow your mind by explaining all of the higher mathematics I've chosen to ignore, please just go ahead and look at Figs. 19 and 20. Need I say more? [105]

Figure 19: Regression Line of Temperature.

Figure 20: Regression Line of Layers of Clothing.

Clearly, there is a very strong trend over the two months considered in this study. This is incredibly disturbing. But prepare to be even more disturbed when you look at the predictions. Prepared? Here they are...

Figure 21: Predicted temperature for 2014, as stated in the title.

Figure 22: Predicted layers of clothing for 2014.

At this rate, it will be -240° F by July, 2014, and before 2015 begins, the Earth will be the coldest place in the universe. By 2015, the Earth will be colder than absolute zero, which is not possible according to physicists, but is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by this regression analysis [106]. More tragically, I will be wearing 30.5 layers of clothing! Global warming? My ass 

### Notes

101. Obviously a _nom de plume_. Such a name could not exist in nature.

102. Feel free to again view Fig.16, if you have not already tacked a copy up on your wall.

103. Also, the only person who should do things strictly is my dominatrix.

104. Their valid points include: a) periodic fluctuations (such as day and night, and seasons) are not accounted for well using regression analysis b) time series are auto-correlated, rendering the R2 statistic unreliable, whatever the hell that means.

105. Don't answer that. I don't really care. Either way I will say more and you can't stop me.

106. Yes, I know 2014 is already over and there is "evidence" that the Earth is not yet the coldest place in the Universe. But an R2 of 0.97 is pretty tough to ignore.

107. Which will sadly be no longer detectible under 30.5 layers of clothing. Sorry ladies.

# Chapter 14

### What the Dinosaurs Would Teach Us About Climate Change IF They Could Talk and IF They Ever Existed

### Rev. Dr. Fideleo A. Sauropod, Clergyman, Biblical Literalist, League Bowler

The Earth is 6,019 years old. God said that. Specifically, in the Bible. This information was relayed to a grateful human populous by Archbishop Ussher [108], a great man who had not only read the Bible, but also knew how to add. The Archbishop established for us in 1650 that the world was created by God in 4004 BC at the beginning of the night that proceeded the morning of October 23 [109]. He used the unassailable technique of adding the ages of everyone in the Bible to arrive at this precise figure. Of course, scientists have been trying to prove him wrong for centuries, saying that the Earth is much older. I believe, however, that as a scientist as well as a clergyman, it is not my purview to make religious judgments, especially in reference to Christianity, which is the one true religion. The cleric in me _knows_ that this 6,019-year figure is accurate, while the skeptical scientist in me simply _assumes_ that it is. Nonetheless, it is worth engaging in an act of whimsy and speculating on how the Earth might work if it were actually millions, or even billions, of years old.

Such a speculative approach is not without precedent in the pantheon of great literature. One such example comes from an author whose name few people likely remember—that of former Dingo boots spokesperson and sports memorabilia enthusiast O.J. Simpson. He was falsely accused of murder in 1995 on the basis of nothing more than circumstantial and extensive forensic evidence. He was eventually acquitted, largely as a result of the fact that individual human beings did not yet have unique DNA in 1995. God created it a few years later. Nonetheless, O.J. later decided to write a book entitled "If I did it" in which he spread his creative wings to imagine an alternate reality. I will do the same here when discussing how the Earth might work, if it were, say, 4.54 billion years old, and had been inhabited by giant reptiles between 200 and 65 million years ago.

The Earth would have been a much warmer place 100 million years ago, with a measurably different atmospheric composition. No less an authority on paleobiology than Congressman John Thune astutely pointed out that carbon dioxide levels were much higher during the hypothetical age of the dinosaurs than they are now. He recognized what so many scientists and virtually all environmentalists fail to acknowledge—that high carbon dioxide levels are not harmful to living things! Or at least they're not harmful to hypothetical extinct animals. How can we argue that the effects of climate on reptiles is not directly applicable to humans when we know that reptile physiology guides nearly every choice the human beings make? One need only observe the flocks of people moving to Florida (Gator country) and Arizona (known for rattlesnakes) to realize that we all behave like reptiles.

Cynics laughed off Thune's accurate observation, claiming that somehow the fact that dinosaurs are extinct nullified his statement's inherent wisdom. But of course this is ridiculous since catastrophic global warming did not kill the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were more likely killed by catastrophic global cooling, possibly caused by an asteroid impact. Clearly, no lessons about climate change can be learned from that. Interestingly, dinosaurs were also the likely beneficiaries of a mass extinction almost two-hundred million hypothetical years earlier than that (251 million years ago). Some combination of massive volcanism, oxygen depletion, hydrogen sulfide build-up in the oceans, destruction of the ozone layer, and drastic rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide killed off the majority of the species competing with dinosaurs' ancient ancestors. Again, there are no lessons for modern times that we can learn from this hypothetical occurrence, known as the Great Dying.

But if dinosaurs were alive today, or ever existed, and could talk, they would tell us that carbon dioxide is a fine thing. They'd tell us to put as much of it into the atmosphere as we can. "You'll have a tropical paradise—all the ferns and triceratopses you can eat, they will say [110]". They'd also tell us that the first Jurassic Park was great, but Jurassic Park III sucked diplodocus dong [111]. Finally, they'd tell us to eat, drink, and be merry, for one day, you shall go the way of the trilobites.

### Notes

108. The first "s" is silent.

109. Time Zone not specified.

110. Except the triceratopses.

111. Except the triceratopses, who paleontologists have recently discovered have an unhealthy fixation with William H. Macy in sweaty shirts. Also, God finds the term "dong" perfectly acceptable, except in reference to human genitalia. If you use it in that context, you will go to Hell.
Special Feature: A Scientist Explains Why You Shouldn't Listen to Scientists Part 3: How THEY are secretly conspiring to make YOU seem paranoid

### Name Withheld by Request, Former Academic, Doomsday Prepper

I do not usually believe in so-called "conspiracy theories". I do not believe, for example, that all world leaders are alien lizards disguised as humans. That is foolish. The majority of world leaders are normal human members of the Illuminati. Now I'm not saying that aliens don't control their brains using radioactive emissions from crystals of an undiscovered element called Artbellium-571, but they're definitely not lizards. At least not as many as you might think.

Yet despite my skepticism regarding conspiracies, the evidence for a global warming conspiracy is too abundant to ignore. The first sign of any conspiracy is that random basement-dwelling people start saying that there is a conspiracy. People started saying there was a global warming conspiracy way back in the 1990's. The second sign of a conspiracy is that there is absolutely no evidence for a conspiracy, because, after all, conspiracies only work if the conspirators hide the fact that it exists. For a long time, the evidence for a global warming conspiracy was absolutely nowhere, which proved 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that the conspiracy existed. Then in 2009, Climategate [112], revealed the infamous e-mail messages that showed the evidence of a conspiracy to the world, which proved the existence of a conspiracy even more. Game, set, checkmate! More on that later.

I have observed the conspiracy first-hand. All of the climatologists I have accused of conspiring have denied that there even is a conspiracy, which is clearly suspicious. Why are these scientists bothering to deny that they belong to a conspiracy, if none exists?! Furthermore, these "scientists" have been uncannily uniform in their responses to my inquiries. A surprising number have used clearly identifiable phrases such as "That's ridiculous", "That's utterly ridiculous", and "Who did you say you were?" [113] This can only indicate that, like thieves agreeing upon an alibi, they have been collaborating to ensure that their stories line up. They have all mutually agreed that they should say the idea of a conspiracy is "ridiculous". Furthermore, to my knowledge, not a single scientist has ever admitted to being a part of a conspiracy. This not only attests to the existence of a conspiracy, but provides evidence of its power over its members.

Science is a closed community, and closed communities breed conspiracies, which completely dominate science. For example, for hundreds of years, there has been a conspiracy against any and all scientists who argue that the Earth is flat. But perhaps nowhere are conspiracies more evident than in the field of climatology. The idea of "human-induced global warming" became all the rage in climate science beginning in the 1980's. By the mid-1990's the global-warming orthodoxy became so pervasive that dissenting scientists could barely contradict the idea of warming without having their own research scrutinized by other scientists. Of course, some of the consensus regarding climate change is undoubtedly due to the sheep-like behavior of most academics, who unquestioningly fall into line once a clever hypothesis and a vast array of replicable and verifiable evidence is presented to them. But in this case, the collusion seemed much more sinister, ensnaring even politicians and activists who were eager to hitch their wagons to a popular idea for their own benefit. From the very start of the climate change debate, people began to point to a global conspiracy, for obvious reasons.

The conspiracy should come as a revelation to no one. If there is one group of people on Earth who agree about everything, it's academics. Academics can't think creatively or independently; they have no opinions about anything, and they back down from all potential conflicts. For example, I once worked in an academic department where the entire faculty, with the exception of only a few members, were ultimately able to come to an agreement on which day of the week to hold faculty meetings. Those who did not wish to attend on Fridays amicably boycotted. Even in the more contentious academic departments where I've worked, everyone has always fallen into line, like sheep in a flock. In one department, it was clear that there were some internal disagreements, so the faculty conspired to never speak to or look at each other again. Thus, these typical weak-willed academics carried on quite affably until they were later able to conspire to have the university administration shut their department down entirely.

The scientific community as a whole is much like any one of these academic departments. Everyone unquestioningly agrees upon everything, and those who don't are cast out of the ranks of "respectable" scientists. They are hurled headlong right off the ivory tower and into the turbulent waters of intellectual obscurity, often being banished to "state universities" where they are forced to deal with endless streams of tattooed, flip-flop wearing students on a daily basis. Allow me to provide an example from experience. Quite clearly, I hold opinions that are contrary to the "global warming" orthodoxy. I have not had one single academic paper published in the Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Climate Research, or the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Association. The primary reason, aside from the fact that I have not submitted any manuscripts to any of those journals, is clearly that I refuse to conform to the scientific orthodoxy. I simply refuse to be a co-conspirator in scientific fraud.

Scientists are not trustworthy. This is proven further by the annual Gallup Poll to determine which professions are most trusted by the public. Not a single respondent has ever chosen "scientist" as the most trustworthy profession, which has caused pollsters never to have even included it as a category. It is safe to say that it is difficult for most people to hear the word "fraud" without immediately thinking of science. I am hard pressed to remember a single year of my life when a massive scientific hoax has not been exposed on a worldwide scale, aside perhaps from the years before and after 1996. Frankly, it's difficult for me to understand why anyone would listen to anything anyone in the scientific community has to say.

Fortunately, many concerned citizens, with absolutely nothing to gain, have been bravely pushing to expose rampant scientific fraud. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are two notable examples. These men have been tireless in their efforts to discredit the scientific establishment, despite all of the damage this has done to their careers [114]. In questioning science, Beck and Limbaugh have effectively alienated themselves from the enormous numbers of intellectuals in their audiences that hold the scientific establishment as sacred [115].

Many others have been fighting a brave fight against Big Science in a less voluble, but no less courageous manner. They have been writing books and news articles, blogging, twittering, and broadcasting the truth on local radio and television. They have helped to prove that climate change is a hoax. But perhaps no one has done more to expose the malfeasance rampant in climate science that the computer hackers who were able to expose thousands of conspiratorial e-mails between some of the scientists central to the pro-global-warming campaign.

Climategate's big reveal occurred in 2009 when the private e-mail accounts of several high-profile climate scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain were made public by hackers [116]. This group of scientists, known as the Climate Research Unit (CRU), is one of only three major research groups that contributes to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. These e-mails demonstrated unequivocally that scientists were collaborating to deliberately promote the notion of global warming, in several different ways. First, these scientists were shown to be biased—they consistently agreed with other researchers who shared similar views, but very often disagreed with researchers who held opinions that contradicted their own. In their e-mails, they were often dismissive and even insulting in their treatment of other scientists. Such callous behavior certainly wouldn't fly in the private sector, where employees always speak very highly of their co-workers in e-mail messages. Additionally, some of these scientists may have deleted data that may or may not have contradicted the idea of global warming, and didn't happen to fit on their hard drives [117].

But the most serious scientific skullduggery involved the way these climatologists were actually analyzing and presenting data. In particular, the phrases "trick", "fiddled with the data", and "hide the decline" are peppered liberally at least once within the 13-year record of e-mails—it's like they talked about nothing else. Of course, the global warming advocates argued that these statements were taken out of context, on the scant grounds that many critics ignored all of the words before and after each of these incriminating phrases. That seems a moot point of course—this is a question of data manipulation, whatever the context. I speak from experience. When you've spent as much time fiddling with climate data as I have, you begin to learn the tricks of the trade, so you can easily recognize when someone is misrepresenting data to serve a more sinister purpose. Climategate should have been the nail in the coffin for global warming, but due to the wealth, fame, and almost dictatorial power scientists enjoy in our society, the myth of global warming has persevered.

As if all the evidence I have already discussed is not enough, let me present you with one more piece of definitive proof that global warming is a hoax. I used a research methodology pioneered by esteemed journalist Sean Hannity [118]. A Google search of "global warming hoax" took less than a tenth of a second to reveal more than 3.5 million references. Now obviously, I did not read all three-and a-half million articles that outline the evidence for a global warming hoax, so I cannot vouch for the fact that every single one is impeccably researched, logically consistent, and properly referenced. But if even 90% of them are, we're still left with more than three-million pieces of irrefutable evidence for a global warming hoax [119]. Scientists, who are always talking about the need for empirical evidence, should take heed—in this technological age, there is no clearer proof of facts than a carefully worded Google search. The evidence is right there at our fingertips.

### Notes

112. Named after the Climatewater Hotel, made famous by the Watergate Scandal.

113. I didn't, you jackass.

114. They currently scrape by on about $80 and $70 million per year, respectively. What sacrifice!

115. There are many square miles of territory in the U.S. where Rush Limbaugh cannot be heard every weekday.

116. Why scientists are allowed to correspond privately by e-mail in the first place is a separate issue entirely.

117. Oh, computer problems...how convenient.

118. He used it to prove that people were blaming Sarah Palin for the shooting of Arizona Congresswomen Gabby Giffords.

119. Note to Scientists: I performed a control experiment for comparison. There were a mere 3,140 online references to the reggae concert that Queen Elizabeth is hosting on Neptune in the year 2023.

# Chapter 15

### Climate Isn't Changing, The Universe Is

### Lord Kerchief of Umbrage, OBE, 1971 Upper-Class Twit of the Year

I am a busy and important man, not necessarily in that order. Still, I like to carve out a few precious minutes a day to do something that is incredibly wasteful and tedious—I listen to what other people [120] have to say. On one lucky occasion, however, this charitable practice turned out not to be wasteful [121], because what I heard set me on course to independently solve the mystery of the global warming hoax entirely on my own. The speaker was Rupert Sheldrake, a pompous and self-important British scientist [122]. Sheldrake contends that many of the "laws" of physics, and the mathematical constants that affect them, are not fixed at all, but fluctuate. He cited an example of the speed of light, which showed a variation of some twenty meters per second from year to year and decade to decade, until, as he puts it, dirty, scheming, no-good, scientists [123] put a stop to all the variation by defining the length of a meter using the speed of light itself. Now, he noted, if the speed of light changes, so does the length of the meter, so we will never even notice the difference. He mentioned that the constant of universal gravitation also varies. He apparently has other examples in a book that I have no plans to read—I'll listen to other people on occasion, but reading—what am I, a common spinster?

Sheldrake's ideas are clearly idiotic, but something he said triggered me to independently devise the most brilliant and true scientific fact that has ever been conceived in the field of human thought. Global temperature isn't changing, degrees are. In other words, scientists have been measuring higher temperatures because the fundamental properties of thermometers have been changing. It's like money—a Pound Sterling doesn't buy what it used to, and similarly, a degree doesn't count for what it did back before East India was stolen from the British Empire by meddlesome Indians. A temperature of 30°C today would have only been 28°C when I was a young lad, impishly sneaking rat poison into my nanny's tea [124]. Admittedly, there are some details regarding my brilliant and true theory left to fill in, which I will do once I think them up. For instance, scientists will undoubtedly argue that sea level has been rising and glaciers have been retreating. If they do argue that, they're idiots of course, since it's obvious that not only have the fundamental properties of thermometers and degrees been changing, but so have the fundamental properties of water. The fundamental properties of soil, rock, plants, animals, and people have been changing proportionately too! It's childishly simple [125].

Some cynics might be tempted to ask "Where's your proof?" [126] I say old chap, is there any proof for Einstein's Theory of Relativity? [127] Is there proof for Darwin's Theory of Evolution? [128] Is there proof for Plate Tectonics? [129]

In conclusion, we must embrace, rather than overanalyze, this wonderful news that I have generously bestowed upon the masses [130]! The climate isn't getting any warmer, we're just measuring it wrong.

### Notes

120. People who have the misfortune of not being me.

121. Although it was tedious.

122. Sorry for the redundancy.

123. This is paraphrased.

124. We had many a chuckle over her unmarked grave.

125. Retarded.

126. Have you checked the pudding?

127. Yes.

128. Plenty.

129. Mountains of Proof.

130. Unwashed, I assume.

# Chapter 16

### Wild Animals

### Professor Aldo Dimentia, Old Coot

Although this esteemed volume is devoted to the global warming hoax, I think we can all agree that there is another issue we should be devoting just as much time to doing nothing about—species extinction. First of all, there's only one species in the world that matters—humans [131].

Second, we have far too many wild animals as it is. More broadly, we have far too much nature, period. A civilized person can barely drive down the street without seeing wild, unkempt trees or unruly squirrels. And try to drive outside city limits...don't get me started! Even in a sensible vehicle like a Hummer or a Land Rover, you are in danger of being seriously delayed by a collision with a family of turtles or a baby deer. Clean-up and repair costs can take a serious bite out of a gentleman's foie gras budget.

Why people seem to like wild-animals is beyond me. Many people don't realize it, but wild animals smell awful and are often covered in flies. They don't even use a bathroom to go to the lavatory [132]. They do not eat with a knife and fork, unless they have been "civilized" by traveling circus-folk. Plus, it has now been shown that some animals are gay. I don't know why these animals are deciding to be homosexuals, but according to scientists, they are. Maybe they're learning it from the scientists, or maybe the scientists are just lying. Equally likely.

But this is a scrupulous scientific publication. Where are the statistics, you ask?! Well, here they are. On the basis of my extensive opinions regarding reality, which I have tirelessly convinced myself of, I can assert that only 1.3% of Americans will ever see a polar bear in the wild. Many of these 1.3% of people will not even want to see a wild polar bear in the first place. Moreover, a not insignificant portion of this 1.3% may be killed by the very same polar bear that they had the opportunity to see. As a society, we cannot pander to the 1.3% of the population that will ever see a wild polar bear, much less the still smaller percentage who wanted to see that bear in the first place and then remained uneaten while doing so.

The percentage of Americans who will see a tiger in the wild is even lower. After all, they are very well camouflaged and they don't even live in this country. I am told that they are found somewhere between Siam and Persia, which sounds beastly. As has been reported in print numerous times [133], only 1.3% of Americans will ever see a wild polar bear, so it's not a stretch to assume that less than 0% will ever see a wild tiger.

And before you hippie environmentalists start chaining yourselves to whales, let me give you a wake-up call. Animals don't recycle. Wild animals don't give an otter's ass about your blue boxes. They just run around shedding their skin and laying their eggs wherever they damn well please. Moreover, many bleeding heart liberals simply don't realize how wild animals are manipulating them with deceptive media campaigns. Sure, a baby deer can put on the sad eyes for a photographer when its leg is caught in a bear trap, and a harp seal can turn on the waterworks for the Nature Channel during a clubbing, but it's all business when the cameras are off. Don't think for a second that a baby seal wouldn't beat you to death for fun if it could wrap its barnacle-infested flippers around a seal club. Have you ever been clubbed to death by a baby seal? Well I have [134], and it's not fun! Look at the table below of animals that are allegedly endangered [135] as a result of alleged global warming and other alleged human activities. It speaks for itself, using words. I'd say more, but the pretty young nurse says it's time for my medication. Good day.

### Notes

131. Specifically, Americans.

132. Or a lavatory to go to the bathroom.

133. Four times in the last paragraph alone.

134. This statement has not been independently verified.

135. Not endangered enough!

# Chapter 17

**I'm Totally, Like, 18 to 24 years old** **[136] and I don't believe in Global Warming #No Way Dude**

### Professor Mackleless, Whippersnapper, Student

So like I'm a young person, dude. And so my cool professor said some like rad stuff in class. And so like, I just want to tell you about it and show you why global warming is like so not real. In like my own words. YOLO!

OMG! This whole greenhouse effect shit goes back to like 1895, when a Nobel Prize chemistry dude named Svante said that double the carbon dioxide means, like, six degrees warmer. So dude, "the greenhouse effect" is like, so yesterday. Why are we even talking about it? LOL! Scientists and other dudes don't care about ideas from like two centuries ago. It's time to ditch these stale-ass ideas, just like we got rid of other old science, like the flat Earth, demons that cause diseases, and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. LMFAO!

Also too dudes, why do we need to worry about global warming since we might be headed for another ice age in less than 10,000 years? Why do we need to worry about global warming since we're going to be swallowed by the sun in less than five billion years? Why do we need to worry about global warming when there could be a zombie apocalypse or a vampire weekend right around the corner? Dude, what if I run out of weed before then? People aged18-24 years—like me—smoke a lot of weed, right? Hey dudes, just maybe temperature goes up for another 50 years, and we all chill with our brahs at the beach, and then the Gulf Stream stops and it gets real cold again, and so we go snowboarding and it's all good dudes and lady dudes! Just chill! YOLO!

### Notes

136. Exact ages are like, so lame, dude.

# Chapter 18

### Alleged Impacts of Climate Change

### Dr. Laura Malkintent, Authority, Anti-Vaxxer

We've seen plenty of evidence backing up the fact that climate change is not real and if it is, it's not really all that bad, and even if it is bad, it's not caused by humans anyway, so there's nothing we can do about it. Even if it is caused by humans, it's still probably too late to do anything, and none of that matters, because doing something will hurt America. So clearly we don't need to do anything about it, if it exists, which it doesn't. But, what are the effects of non-existent global warming that have already occurred or are expected to occur in the future?

The most obvious, of course, is that the temperature will be warmer in the summer than it is now. This is wonderful news for everyone, except maybe polar bears, penguins, arctic foxes, ptarmigan, caribou, fur seals, other polar and non-polar species, Inuit, Sami, construction workers, landscapers, kids, sick people, old people [137], the obese [138], and people who don't like hot weather [139]. This effect is most pronounced over land, in Polar Regions, and in cities. Land is affected more than oceans because it absorbs and re-radiates heat more quickly and loses less heat to evaporation. Polar Regions are strongly affected because they experience decreased reflection of solar radiation from snow and ice (which melts) and increased ocean circulation. Cities are doubly affected because, in addition to being exposed higher global temperatures, they experience the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. Surfaces in urban areas, such as asphalt and concrete, typically absorb more solar energy than natural surfaces, leading to temperatures in cities that can be more than 10°F higher than surrounding areas, particularly at night. The combination of alleged global warming and the UHI effect can lead to intense heat waves in cities. Deadly heat waves have affected nearly all parts of the United States during the past two decades, including major urban centers such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. Heat waves have also affected non-American areas, including Europe, Asia, and Australia. For example, a record-setting heat wave may have killed as many as 70,000 people in Europe in 2003. The good news is that by most estimates, heat waves are already the deadliest of all meteorological hazards [140], so by definition, the problem can't get any worse.

Warming in the winter is also an effect of climate change, and this truly is good news for everyone, except polar species, alpine species, some other species, ice-hotel concierges, skiers, snowboarders, snow removal companies, Irving Berlin's estate, and isolated communities that rely on winter snowfall for their water supply [141]. Warm winters are great. There's a potentially interesting twist here though. It's possible that winter warming could cause the Arctic Oscillation to swing towards a negative phase. In plain English, this means that frigid weather and winter storms could shift further south over North America, as they did during the "Polar Vortex" winter of 2013-2014. In Olde English, this means that ye shall needeth cast multitudinous hags upon thy pyre, nay for heresy, but alas, for warmthe. Of course, after a long hot summer burying heat-wave victims, these icy winter temperatures and heavy snows will provide a nice cool burst of refreshment for residents of the United States and Southern Europe, and will help preserve the bodies of the victims of cold-exposure.

Warming, of course, causes ice and snow to melt. This can cause profound changes to polar and alpine environments. This is a wonderful thing. Yes, we all know about the poor polar bears [142], but think of how much oil might be under all that ice and snow. With the Arctic Ocean becoming more and more ice-free every year, we will be able to drill like crazy, and even send ships through what is known as the Northwest Passage [143]. Ice sheets in Antarctica will become smaller and thinner, and ice sheets in Greenland might disappear altogether. Mountain glaciers will also shrink or disappear. This is great—there might be some really neat stuff under there that we can burn or sell [144]! Melting of ice and snow also decreases the Earth's albedo, leading to further warming.

With alleged rising temperatures and alleged melting of ice sheets, there will be alleged sea-level rise. Sea level rises due to the fact that water expands when heated (thermal expansion) and because melting ice sheets contribute additional water to the ocean basins. Global sea level has allegedly increased about 20 cm since the Industrial Revolution, and the rate of increase has accelerated to nearly 3 mm/year during the past two decades (Fig. 23). Based on this, most scientists predict that global sea level will rise by at least 30 cm (one foot) by the end of this century, and some predict a rise of more than a meter (3.28 feet). It's worth noting as well that local sea level change is determined by global sea level change, changes in local water level as a result of winds and currents, and changes in the level of the adjacent land surface as a result of geological processes. Many of the world's river deltas, for example, are sinking because dams and levees prevent the influx of new sediment, which is necessary to offset the natural processes of compaction and subsidence. Sea level rise could potentially flood parts of most coastal states, notably Florida and Louisiana, and submerge parts of major cities like New York and Miami. On the bright side, sea level rise could flood several non-American cities, like London and Bangkok, and even leave entire non-American countries, such as Maldives and Tuvalu, under water.

Figure 23: Sea Level Rise Projects for the 21st Century (Source: Robert Rohde, Global Warming Art Project)

Sea-level rise is a long-term cause of increased flooding in coastal areas, but storms, such as cyclones and thunderstorms, are often the direct cause of specific flood events. Scientists speculate that a warmer Earth will experience more storms as the result of increased overall energy availability in the atmosphere. The key word here is "speculate", since their only basis for this statement is physics. If these scientists are correct, "Tornado Alley" which encompasses much of the U.S. heartland from Texas in the south, to Minnesota in the north, might become Tornado Boulevard, with a business loop along the East Coast. Tropical cyclones, known as tropical storms and hurricanes in this country and typhoons or simply cyclones in non-American countries, could increase as a result of increased global temperature. Specifically, the source of energy and moisture for tropical cyclones is warm ocean water—in fact, these storms can form only over water that has a surface temperature of at least 81°F. This typically occurs in the tropics during the warmer months of the year. For example, most hurricanes that strike the United States form in the Atlantic Ocean off the African coast between May and November, with the highest concentration occurring during August and September. A global increase in ocean temperature could allow tropical cyclones to form more frequently, last longer, travel farther, and grow increasingly intense. Since global sea level is rising, this makes it more likely that coastal flooding due to hurricanes will also increase drastically. On the other hand, if you get the right crowd together, "hurricane parties" rock [145]. New York City [146] and Boston are just two of the new locations that may soon be introduced to this great southern tradition.

Clearly, storms are associated with inconveniences like deadly flooding, destructive wind, and dangerous lightning, but they are just one element of how global circulation is changing as the planet allegedly warms. Temperature variation on the Earth's surface leads to pressure variations, which are the primary cause of wind. In turn, wind is the primary cause of surface circulation in the oceans. As heating patterns change due to unconfirmed global warming, we might expect to see variations in the position of high and low pressure areas on the Earth, and shifts in the strength and position of the Trade Winds, the Westerlies, and the Easterlies. Changes in wind circulation will affect the path of not only storms, but all weather systems. This will redistribute precipitation [147]. Areas that are now dry may become prone to flooding as rainfall increases, whereas other areas may begin to experience lengthy droughts. This is probably nothing to worry about—I'm sure the novelty of wearing hip waders to work or using bathwater to brush your teeth, then wash your clothes, and then flush the toilet will never wear off [148].

Changes in precipitation patterns and overall moisture balance could affect agriculture, despite rapid and completely uncontroversial advancements in genetically modified food. The moisture balance is a measurement of the amount of precipitation minus the amount of evapotranspiration (liquid water entering the atmosphere as vapor, including through plant activity). Analysis shows that the moisture balance over large agricultural areas in the tropics and the mid-latitudes, including the Midwestern United States, will become increasingly negative as global temperature allegedly increases. But when life gives you lemons, move somewhere that has enough water to irrigate citrus fruit... In any case, these changes will likely affect nothing important except the global food supply [149].

Now I know we've already heard more than enough about the poor polar bears, and in a previous chapter, Professor Dimentia discussed why we shouldn't care about how species will be affected by climate change. He is completely 100% entirely correct, except that really we should care about how species will be affected. Here's why—two words—infectious diseases and pests. Infectious diseases are generally caused by living things, including viruses [150], bacteria, parasites, and occasionally fungi [151]. The success of some of these nasty organisms is dependent on temperature and available moisture, either because they, or the organisms that host them, are affected directly by environmental conditions. The Anopheles mosquito, which carries the malaria parasite, for example, is currently found only in the tropics and subtropics. Scientist fear that global warming could extend the range of this mosquito, along with other diseases and disease carriers. Luckily, though, there are very few nasty diseases that originate in the tropics [152].

"Pests" is an arbitrarily broad category that could include anything that include any or all non-human, non-American organisms [153]. Climate change can affect the habitat, migration patterns, and geographical range of organisms. Do you like shooting possums, raccoons, and mountain lions [154]? Climate change might bring more of these bullet-ready animals to your doorstep. Don't like shooting things [155]? Well, you might be in luck too, because many species might disappear altogether. There's truly something for everybody; even the farmers, who might have all kinds of new pests showing up in their fields. Sorry to wax nostalgic [156], but it's been a good long while since we had really good clouds of locusts. Even the lumberjacks will get a taste, as species like the bark beetle kill trees farther and farther north.

Climatologists insist that oceans are part of the climate system, and also insist that a warming climate and increased carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere will somehow affect them. They claim, first of all, that it will make the oceans warmer. This is surprisingly reasonable, although they push it a little too far for my liking when they claim that the atmospheric temperature would rise even more than it allegedly has already except that the oceans are storing much of the Earth's excess heat (which they will ultimately release). Ocean currents are affected by a changing climate, because deep-water circulation is influenced primarily by the temperature and salinity of the water, and surface circulation is driven by wind. Oceans also affect atmospheric composition by absorbing and releasing gases. Scientists claim that the oceans are presently absorbing as much as 50% of the carbon dioxide produced by human activity, causing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere to remain lower than it would be otherwise. They warn that as the carbon dioxide concentration and the water temperature continue to increase, there is a danger that oceans will stop absorbing—and begin releasing—carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This would cause the atmospheric concentration to skyrocket. Carbon dioxide does affect ocean chemistry in another way—it forms carbonic acid, causing ocean acidification. Ocean acidification affects metabolic rates of some photosynthetic and non-photosynthetic organisms, and can hinder organisms from forming skeletal and shell structures.

Coral reefs are perhaps the ecosystems that have been, and will be, affected most strongly by ocean acidification (allegedly). Coral reefs are structures consisting of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) that are built by corals, which themselves are animals. Acidification inhibits reef building because it reduces the number of carbonate ions available in seawater, while also dissolving existing reef material. In addition, corals are very sensitive to water temperature and sea level changes, both of which result from global warming. Decreases in water clarity, often caused by agriculture, forestry, mining, and urbanization, are also a threat to coral, as are certain species that flourish during periods of coral vulnerability, such as the crown-of-thorns starfish. Some scientists have predicted that the planet's coral reefs will disappear by the end of the 21st Century. Still, unless you're a scuba diver, there's really nothing to worry about. Just go to an aquarium if you want to see coral or any of the hundreds of colorful fish species that call coral reefs home (Fig. 24). That is, unless you like seafood, because the loss of coral reefs specifically, and the overall acidification of the oceans negatively affect global fisheries. But, if you don't like seafood, and don't work in the fishing industry or any associated trade, then there really is nothing to worry about. Unless you like oxygen, because marine algae and other phytoplankton produce a lot of it, and they are vulnerable to ocean acidification as well.

Figure 24: Coral Reefs (NOAA): Who needs all this sea junk anyway?

In conclusion, alleged global warming strongly affects a broad range of human and natural systems. Some of these apparent effects are awesome, and some are not. Generally though, there's nothing to worry about, because ecosystems and humans are very resilient and adaptable. We'll instantly and easily find new places to live, new ways to grow food, and new technology to help us survive any catastrophic weather disasters that arise in the future or may have already happened. The effects of global warming are both non-existent [157] and insignificant. Keep eating your steaks and driving your SUV's, there's nothing to worry about.

### Notes

137. Sorry, Florida

138. Tough luck, Mississippi

139. And probably others, but sentences can be only so long.

140. Ahead of lightning, tornadoes, hurricanes, and Weather Channel Music Induced Suicides (WCMIS).

141. Such as Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco.

142. Screw polar bears (but tranquilize them first).

143. So named by explorer Henry Hudson in honor of Kimye's daughter.

144. Also the title of a game show on the short-lived "Arson Network" (renamed the Smithsonian Channel).

145. Nothing enhances the taste of pure grain alcohol like impending death.

146. Superstorm Sandy was just Happy Hour.

147. Not as bad as wealth redistribution, but still.

148. Neither will the toothpaste stains on your clothes.

149. Americans care about food? As if...

150. Pathetic, waffling scientists have spent decades trying to figure out whether viruses are living things. We'll just cut the Gordian Rotavirus right here and declare that they are.

151. Especially if you're an athlete who has feet.

152. Unless you want to count Ebola, AIDS, sleeping sickness, dengue fever, river blindness, and leprosy.

153. Human or not, don't try to tell me that Latvians aren't pests.

154. Who doesn't?

155. You're more of a clubber? A stabber? An exploder?

156. Less painful than waxing anything else.

157. Especially the effects that have already occurred.

# Chapter 19

### The Global Warming Conspiracy is All About Wealth Redistribution (i.e., Socialism, i.e., Communism)

### J. Thurston "Mitt" Roquefort IV, 0.1 Percenter, Mint Julep Connoisseur

Climate change is not real and is not caused by humans. It is simply a socialist strategy invented by scientists and the liberal media to redistribute wealth and to turn America into a communist nation, much like Europe. The reasoning is simple. Climate change will most strongly affect the least important components of society and the world. Yet the funding for research, "mitigation", and "emergency response", as always, comes from America's job-creators. Figure 25 shows a hierarchy of entities in the world ranked by their importance, and how much they will be impacted by alleged climate change.

Figure 25: The most important component of society, the job-creators, will be affected the least by hypothetical climate change. By contrast, insignificant elements of society, such as wild plants and the homeless, will be affected the most.

Of course, this figure is a generalization, but it is broadly true. For example, the impact on thoroughbreds may actually be quite severe since the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness, and even the Belmont Stakes are presently held outdoors. Yet climate researchers and government agencies have focused almost no attention or resources toward solving the problem of how horses are supposed to run outdoors on a warmer planet, or how we will be able to keep mint juleps cool.

Wild plants and animals will certainly be affected by global warming, but it is not clear that any of these effects will be negative. Many species will begin to migrate toward the Poles. Animals and plants don't own property, so they'll just be able to move freely and probably will benefit from the change of scenery. Of course, species that already live close to the Poles might not have anywhere to go, but let's be honest, they have a pretty shitty life anyway. I know I wouldn't want to sit out on an ice floe and chew on seal blubber all day. Another impact on animal species is a change in migratory patterns, but again, this is not a big deal; in fact, sometimes I ask my driver to take a different route to my club, so a wildebeest or a monarch butterfly can certainly point themselves a little to the left or the right. Some species may also experience shifts in their seasonal cycles. Flowers may bloom and trees may bud earlier in the year. Animals may mate or lay eggs at different times than they do now. So what? Plants and animals have no schedules, no deadlines to meet, no golf tournaments to attend, no private jets to catch, and no corporations to take over, drive into bankruptcy, and sell off in pieces for a massive profit. What else does an animal have to do? Believe it or not, scientists are also complaining that some animals may not be able to hibernate for as long as they do now. This is undoubtedly a good thing. Animals need to be less slothful [158]. Moreover, evidence shows that many wild plants and animals may already be benefitting from global warming, even though it doesn't exist. The pine bark beetle and the Anopheles mosquito are flourishing. Yet scientists continue to talk about the dangers of global warming.

Species in the oceans will also undoubtedly benefit from global warming. First of all, as the ice caps melt, there will be more and more ocean every year. By the end of the century, half of Florida could be inhabited by fish. The ocean will be nice and warm and comfortable, which will be beneficial to all species [159]. Scientists have pointed out that warm water has less capacity for dissolved oxygen than colder water, but I'd have to assume that if fish really needed oxygen that badly, they'd move onto land [160]. The oceans will also become more acidic, which sounds bad, but then, what doesn't sound bad [161]? Of course, we can't overlook the fact that fish does account for at least 15% of the world's protein consumption, but even in the unlikely event that global fish catch is reduced in warm, oxygen-depleted, acidic oceans, it will mainly affect people in developing countries, who are generally poor, and often African. In summary, wild species on land and in the oceans will be affected by hypothetical global warming, but some might actually benefit. The broader point, though, is that few of these species contribute to society in any way whatsoever [162], yet scientists devote countless tax dollars to studying them.

The poor and the homeless are also likely to be strongly affected by climate change. In fact, scientists estimate that several million poor people may sink even further into worthlessness by becoming homeless as a result of climate change. Droughts, flooding, storms, and other natural disasters are likely to be the leading causes. While all of this nouveau-homelessness is undoubtedly a concern, it is important to realize that a lot of this will occur in poor, developing countries where FOX News reporters [163] are not stationed, so we won't even see it. In the United States, though, we pamper our homeless with luxury cots at the YMCA and all-you-can-eat turkey-product and powdered mashed potatoes every Thanksgiving, so we may have to consider an adjustment in our generous policies if the poor are unable to behave responsibly enough to maintain their homes. Not to moralize, but all these people have to do is to stop squandering money on beer, cigarettes, crystal meth, food, and child-care, and purchase homeowner's insurance. Also, it is always a bad idea to build a primary residence in a flood plain or near a coastline. These hazardous environments are best suited for vacation homes, weekend retreats, cottages, hunting lodges, novelty manors, or investment properties. The poor might want to consider moving to higher ground and using their current home only on holiday. Again though, scientists and policy-makers continue to use the possible effects of climate change on the poor as a tool to demonstrate that we all need to change our lifestyle. And who pays for that? As always, the tax-paying job-creators.

The possible effect of climate change on the working class is a little more difficult to trivialize, since it includes our patriotic farmers, our brave soldiers, the anonymous clock-punchers that keep our businesses profitable, and the uniformed domestic staff members that keep our children fed and our gardens perpetually in bloom. Rainfall, evaporation, and soil moisture will undoubtedly be affected by climate change, which will have an impact on agricultural productivity. The solution to this may be quite simple, however. We [164] can just move farms farther north. If a crop can no longer be grown in Kansas, we can head north to Nebraska; if Nebraska's too dry, we'll move to the Dakotas. If the Dakotas are no longer productive, we'll try Canada [165]. A second obvious solution to our potential agricultural difficulties was suggested to me by a yachting-partner of mine who happens to be on the board of a little multinational conglomerate [166] that helps provide [167] seeds to family farmers [168]. He mentioned that it is now possible to genetically-engineer [169] crops that grow to exact specifications under almost any conditions. It is just a matter of encouraging [170] the small percentage of farmers that get their seeds from other sources to see the wisdom of purchasing seeds to grow these miraculous new crops.

Unfortunately, natural hazards, water shortages, and reductions in agricultural productivity may indirectly threaten our brave soldiers overseas. There is a strong possibility that hypothetical changes in climate could lead to serious international conflicts, migration of vast numbers of "climate refugees", and increased terrorism. As the world's only superpower, we must exert control over each and every one of these situations [171] through the use of the only diplomatic tool that is effective—overpowering force. Until we are able to conduct all of our attacks on our many foreign enemies using drones, this increase in international conflict will put our brave soldiers at risk. It is what they signed up for, but we should do more than simply recognize them on Veteran's Day; we should be wearing flag pins and leaving those ribbon bumper stickers on our cars 365 days a year!

In conclusion, climate scientists have been placing a lot of stress on the impacts of hypothetical climate change on many of the less-important sectors of society, including wild species and the homeless, while largely ignoring the impact on more significant sectors, such as show dogs and decorative plants. Even worse, they are completely ignoring the impacts on society's most important class, the job-creators. Worse still, they are using taxpayer money to fund this biased "research". But worst of all, with full complicity of a radical left-wing government, they are trying to use these conclusions to implement policy changes that will be very inconvenient to the job creators, and will in all likelihood cost them a lot of money for the sake of a few million lives.

### Notes

158. Especially the sloth.

159. Aside from many species of algae, plants, invertebrates, fish, aquatic mammals, seabirds, and coral.

160. What to breathe is a lifestyle choice, much like veganism or homosexuality.

161. Non-acidic oceans?

162. Except providing food, medicine, wood, and other raw materials.

163. When did FOX News hire reporters?

164. By "We" I mean farmers, although I wouldn't live in Nebraska if it rained caviar and supermodels.

165. OK. There is a complication here, if the "Canadian Army" can be considered a complication.

166. It rhymes with "Don Panto", the world's largest maker of lower-body clothing for Mariachi bands.

167. Sells at a massive profit.

168. The term "family farmers" is used here to mean corporate agribusiness on any scale.

169. And patent.

170. Teams of lawyers are fairly effective at providing just the right encouragement.

171. That affects our national security or our ability to make money.
Special Feature: A Scientist Explains Why You Shouldn't Listen To Scientists. Part 4: Scientists have been Forecasting Disaster forever and they've been wrong

### Dr. T.T. Hindsight, Know-It-All

The term "Malthusian" has been part of the English language since 1821. Many people have a vague sense that the term has a negative connotation, but few are aware of its specific meaning. The term derives from the economic theories proposed by British scholar Thomas Malthus in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries. Malthus stated that human population tends to grow at an exponential rate, whereas the rate of food production can grow only at an arithmetic rate. Malthus thus foresaw that human population would ultimately outstrip the food supply, resulting in widespread starvation and death, which he characterized as "inevitable gigantic famine". Admittedly, Malthus was not a scientist, but as an academic and an economist, he occupied nearly as questionable position in society. And with his doomsday prophesy, he became one of the first academics to try to use science to demonstrate that humans will destroy the Earth.

Malthus' theory has had much staying power, but probably more for the drama than for the reality. It is clear that it represents only one possible scenario that happens to have fit the observable conditions in Britain at the time. There is no inherent reason that population _must_ grow at an exponential rate—in fact, throughout the vast majority of human history, the rate of population growth was exceptionally slow, and often negative. Nor is there any particular reason that agricultural output should increase at an arithmetic rate. Agricultural output depends on a large number of variables, including the quality and quantity of land under cultivation, climatic fluctuations, and technological changes, which do not occur at a fixed pace. Most importantly, output, agricultural or otherwise, is driven by demand in the free market. It is clear that Malthus vastly underestimated the boundless power of capitalism to solve all of humanity's problems [172].

Since the time of Thomas Malthus, many scholars have made notable predictions involving the end of the world at the hand of humans. Plenty have also expressed the view that people should try to live "in harmony" with nature, such as Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, and Aldo Leopold. These authors had anti-American views that were clearly antithetical to capitalism, yet their work was much less destructive than the viewpoints of the anti-human, pro-nature scientists who came later.

During the psychedelic years of the 1960's, scientists and other academics really went into a frenzy, predicting that humans would ultimately cause the end of the world. _Silent Spring_ , by Rachel Carson, was probably the first alarmist environmental work to gain widespread public recognition. The book used eloquent prose, an imaginative literary structure, and limited scientific evidence to warn of the alleged danger of pesticides. Many critics, who were extremely knowledgeable on the subject (having been employed by very innovative and successful chemical companies) pointed out quite astutely that Carson was a woman, and therefore prone to hysteria. Despite these well-founded concerns, the book left an indelible legacy that helped to pave the way for one of the most economically-destructive trends in modern history, "the Environmental Movement". In fact, the patriotic American magazine, _Human Events_ , which regularly includes authors whose political viewpoints span the ideological spectrum from Sean Hannity to Anne Coulter, gave Silent Spring an Honorable Mention on its list of the "Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Century".

In 1968 Paul Ehrlich released a book that was even more radical, entitled _The Population Bomb_. He identified human population growth as the single greatest threat to the planet. Ehrlich went so far as to propose the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of innocent human beings, long before they were even conceived, through the use of birth control drugs in drinking water. Despite his extremism, Ehrlich remained a respected member of the scientific community, largely because many scientists generously interpreted his statements to mean only what they actually said—that putting birth control in the water was possible but entirely inadvisable. Later, Paul Ehrlich and his wife (and uncredited co-author) Anne [173] tried to deny that they had made any doomsday predictions at all. They hid behind a single line in their 201-page book which said regarding such future scenarios that: "we can be sure that none of them will come true as stated". Who are they trying to fool?...A prediction is a prediction.

Yet another notable work from the era, _The Limits to Growth_ , was released in 1972, as the product of a think-tank with the suspiciously European name "The Club of Rome". Its conclusions were exactly what might be expected from a group of effete intellectuals doing too little work and too much thinking. The book predicted that the decline of civilization was imminent; of particular import, they suggested that oil would run out by 1992. Guess what? This didn't happen, and in a later release of the book, the authors were forced to back-pedal, clinging to the technicality that they had never actually made this prediction (they contended that many critics had merely made inferences based on the calculations included in the book). They explained that in these original calculations they had included assumptions of exponential population growth, fixed resource levels, and limited technological innovation. Many resources (notably, of oil) that were undiscovered in 1972 had since become viable. In other words, they used the wimpy, non-committal language typical of scientists to squirm out of the fact that they were wrong. And again, they made the same fundamental mistake that all scientists seem to make—they ignored the fact that capitalism fuels exploration and innovation and will allow the human race to prosper well into the future [174].

The examples above are only a brief overview. The previous five decades have seen a succession of article after article, book after book, documentary after documentary, aimed at demonstrating how humans are destroying the planet. All of them predict a grim future for the human race—a population explosion, resource depletion, toxic seas, poisoned skies, famine and death. They all seek to put the brakes on everything that makes this country great—capitalism, productivity, and freedom. Most importantly, they are all wrong.

Reality is quite different from the catastrophic picture the scientific doomsayers have been pushing for years. Many indicators show that environmental quality has remained the same or even gotten better during the past few decades. By focusing only on these positive indicators, we can see the truth of the situation—that the environment has not gotten worse at all. Let's look at a very familiar example. During the 1950's, London was famous for its horrible air quality, exemplified by "pea-soup fogs" in which it was impossible for a man to see his hand in front of his face. More than 10,000 people may have died during the Great Smog of 1952 alone, ultimately prompting authorities to overreact by instituting a crippling ban on coal burning for domestic purposes in urban areas. And for what? The smog practically disappeared in a decade, presumably all on its own. This is not an isolated result. In fact, a recent study from the journal _Science_ shows that skies over Europe have actually become clearer in the past 30 years, and those over North America have about the same level of particulates as they did in 1973, when the alarmist Clean Air Act was instituted. The study also discussed results from other parts of the world, but those are contradictory to my point, so it makes little sense to include them in this discussion.

During the 1970's and 1980's, environmentalists talked about acid rain like it was the end of the world. These frenzied activists strong-armed the EPA into instituting an extreme left-wing, market-based program known as cap-and-trade to limit sulfur and nitrogen dioxide emissions. Companies were forced to purchase pollution credits and/or trade them with other companies like common communists just so they could continue to do business as usual. And then, a few years later, it became clear that acid rain was not the serious problem that all the doomsayers had predicted. Worse still, this unnecessary program remains in place, and has actually been strengthened, despite the fact that acid rain is nowhere near the problem it once was.

The same is true for the ozone hole. During the 1960's and 1970's scientists and tree-huggers started whining about how pollutants like chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) were destroying the Earth's ozone layer, which lies more than ten miles above the surface, where we can't even see it. Their beef was that ozone protects us and other species from high-energy ultraviolet radiation, which can cause inconveniences such as skin cancer, genetic mutations, and blindness. So the United States, and then the world, enacted laws like the Montreal Protocol [175]. These banned the use of CFC's, which are sorely needed as low-cost [176] refrigerants and spray propellants. Well guess what? A few decades later, data show that the concentration of CFC's is decreasing and the ozone layer is not being depleted at all; in fact, it might actually be getting thicker now. In the meantime, these clearly unnecessary laws have crippled American industry.

In short, the dire predictions and observations made by environmental activists, and the actions taken in response, have been shown, time and time again, to be completely unnecessary. The same will undoubtedly be true of climate change. If we foolishly decide to take drastic actions that kill jobs in order to "save the world", we'll find out in a few decades that the "problem" really isn't as bad as the environmental mafia predicted. Then we will have wasted billions of dollars and we'll have nothing to show for it [177]. Don't listen to the alarmist geophysicists, atmospheric chemists, and climatologists who are pushing this radical agenda of unnecessary action! They were wrong before, and they'll be wrong again.

### Notes

172. Several of which it did not create.

173. Stop defending your husband and get back into the kitchen.

174. They also didn't realize that feminism, education, urbanization, and the availability of abortion and birth control would cause population to stop growing so fast, without more radical solutions.

175. That sounds suspiciously not-American.

176. Profitable

177. Cleaner air?

# Chapter 20

### A Bold Plan to Boldly Assure Our Continued Freedom Forever and Always

### Dr. Dalton Pepper, Editor, Expert, E-Publishing Personality, Activist

I released this book because it contains exactly the type of information today's students are very unlikely to get at most of our nation's universities, which have an almost messianic focus on the scientific consensus achieved through data testing and verification. These institutions would do well to look to some young upstart institutions, such as Glenn Beck University, for guidance, since these have found more innovative ways of addressing the country's vital issues. Such institutions have revolutionized education by cutting through the crap and eliminating the need for oppressive exams, meaningless degrees, laughable government accreditation, and factual subject matter. It is my aggressive hope that through institutions like these, and books like this one, we can save America from the climate hype and get our great nation back on track.

So it is certainly clear from the copious evidence presented in this amazing book that global warming is not real, it is not caused by humans, and the effects of it are not bad. I have definitively shown that we don't need to do anything about global warming. Instead, we need to do something about this global warming hysteria that this country's political left are trying to force on us. Here's what America really needs to do:

a) Encourage driving – eliminate all fuel economy standards, reduce public transit, tax bicycles, eliminate carpool lanes, encourage auto-makers to build bigger cars, and above all, do anything and everything necessary to reduce the price of gas (see b)

b) Allow the free market to flourish by subsidizing oil companies even more heavily than we already do, and eliminating corporate welfare for "green energy" companies.

c) Use the military and economic power of the United States to take over much of the world's fossil fuel supply.

Our government can't tell us what cars to drive or what we're allowed to burn, explode, or throw into the ravine behind the elementary school! The only role of the federal government is to fight wars with as many foreign countries as possible, to seal the country's borders against undesirables [178], to protect the property and safety of citizens from violent criminals, and to decide who is allowed to get married. That's all.

The government must stop its over-regulation of coal, gas, and oil producers and allow them to provide the energy our country so desperately needs. To do so, the Feds must step back and allow the free market to operate even more freely by providing further subsidies and tax incentives to the largest American fossil fuel providers. In this way, these companies, so critical to the fabric of the American way of life, can more efficiently supply our country's vital engines of capitalism and allow freedom to flourish.

But this is not enough. We have a lot of fossil fuel within our borders, but it could eventually run out. We must expand our territory. We should start by annexing Canada. Our approach should be diplomatic at first, suggesting to the Canadians that they may keep their states completely intact, apart perhaps from British Columbia, which could possibly be renamed American Columbia. We should expect considerable co-operation from the citizens of Quebec, whom we will promise to liberate from the tyranny of speaking French [179]. We might also try to align ourselves with the Inuit, the native people of Canada's frozen North, who will most assuredly greet us as liberators. If the Canadians for some reason balk at our generous initial offer to allow them to become part of the greatest country the world has ever seen, we might consider imposing a No Fly Zone. According to Wikipedia, Canada has several air force bases, whose locations are available on Google Maps. We would begin by bombing these installations until the Canadians become more receptive to our offer and apologize for their intransigence. If this fails, we must take drastic steps. We learned from our overwhelming success in the Iraq War that swift action with deadly force is singularly effective. We wasted no time contemplating a long-term strategy, building an international coalition, or learning the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites. We just went in, took care of business, and after a few brief years of indefinite occupation, we brought some of our troops home. USA! USA! USA! The same will be true in Canada. If the conflicts of the Twentieth Century have taught us anything, it's that any powerful nation that takes over another by force will invariably maintain permanent control over the territory they acquire. Critics will argue that there are many cases where this didn't happen, such as World War 1, World War 2, and most of the conflicts of the Cold War, but there are minor exceptions to any rule.

We must act fast. Unfortunately, factual evidence is piling up by the day that threatens to obscure the truth—that global warming is not and will never be occurring. As we speak, glaciers are melting, sea level is rising, and unusual storms, droughts, and heat waves are happening around the world. Scientists are gathering more and more evidence of climate change and developing better and better numerical models. This can only go on for so long before the public is fooled into thinking that global warming is actually real. Do you want some scientist telling you can't drive your truck with the brand new naked lady mud flaps and the oversized [180] nuts hanging from the trailer hitch? Do you want some manicured bureaucrat from the UN shutting down the coal-powered generator that runs your air conditioner and your back porch fridge? Do you want some San Francisco hippie recycling your shootin' cans from your side fence? No, you don't, and I don't either.

Act now! Do it for America!

### Notes

178. Foreigners. Especially swarthy ones and Norwegians of any complexion.

179. Vive les états unis! Les hot-dog manger imbéciles!

180. In my case, undersized.
Bonus Feature! A Short Story That Has Nothing to Do with the Climate-Change Debate [181]

### Earnest Hemmingway, Author, Hunter, Beard Support-System

The chair creaked loudly as Charlie sat down to his nightly bowl of chocolate ice cream. Sheila raised her eyebrows.

"This chair isn't very sturdy." he commented.

"Oh, it's the chair?" Sheila asked doubtfully.

"Yes, the chair." Charlie asserted.

"You haven't put on some weight?"

"Not according to the scale in the bathroom. I've lost two pounds since Sunday night."

"I mean since last year."

"Hey, my weight goes up and down all the time, and every scale says something different."

"Does any scale say you're lighter now than you were last year?"

"I don't know. Maybe. They're all different. But I was lighter this morning than I was Sunday night."

"Well good for you. I hope you can keep it up."

Charlie sat brooding. Finally he said "I guess I have put on a little weight this past year."

"A little..." Sheila echoed, her voice trailing off.

"It's my metabolism." Charlie said defensively. "It's slow."

"Uh, yeah. OK."

"What? You think I'm getting fat?"

"I didn't say that. It's just that you've been eating a lot of ice cream..."

"So what? Look at my brother. He's a lot fatter than I am, and he doesn't even eat ice cream."

"But he eats fast food almost every meal..."

"Hey, there were fat people way before there was fast food or ice cream. Look at Henry the Eighth! No. It's my metabolism." Charlie countered.

"Well, I just think..."

"Hey, I'm not giving up ice cream."

"I didn't say that, but if you want to lose weight..."

"I'm telling you, it's my metabolism. It slows down as you get older. It's natural. It happens to everybody."

"Well sure, but you've put on twenty pounds in the past year. That's when you started eating ice cream. At that rate, you'll weigh seven-hundred pounds by the time you retire."

"Well The human body is really complex. Maybe the ice cream has a small effect, but we don't really know how it all works. There are just so many factors."

"But the doctor didn't say there was anything wrong with your metabolism when you had those tests. They checked your thyroid and all that stuff, didn't they?"

"Well yeah, they checked my thyroid and some other stuff, but they can't check everything. It's complex. Sometimes people gain weight for reasons even doctors can't figure out."

"But didn't he say you should eat less and get a little more exercise?"

"Well OK, but he didn't say for sure that that was the problem, and he couldn't guarantee that doing all that would make me lose weight."

"But it probably would help." Sheila suggested.

"Who knows? The human body's really complex. And my metabolism's going to slow down as I get older anyway. Medical science hasn't figured out how to stop us from aging. We can't stop a natural process."

"No, but that doesn't mean you can't do something about it. At least if you want to lose weight."

"Hey, eating is one of my favorite things to do, and I don't have time to exercise. I don't want to be miserable."

"Now we're getting somewhere..."

"Plus, there are some advantages to being a little bigger. I want to get new clothes anyway."

"You'll have to."

"Hey, don't make fun of me. I don't want to be like your brother. He wouldn't even eat celery the New Year's Eve party because it came from a grocery store that sells chip dip! Doesn't every grocery store sell chip dip?!"

"Don't forget that we caught him doing push-ups in his hospital room after his appendectomy. He still had the IV in his arm!"

"Nobody wants to be like that guy."

"Now there's something we can agree on."

THE END

### Notes

181. Finally!

### Appendix A

### It goes without saying!

Yes it does!
Suggested Readings

Reading is overrated, so I suggest that you spend your time tweeting, blogging, Instagramming, Pinteresting, and yelling loudly at the TV's in Best Buy about how you don't believe any of the hype about climate change. And while you're at Best Buy, pick up some expensive consumer products, because the solution for what is ailing America is—and always will be—to flaunt our freedom by going shopping. Fill your gas tank and drive fast, so that you can get from Best Buy out to the Wal-Mart and then to Costco in time for the free samples, and for tubs of mayonnaise not even your personal trainer can lift. And stock up on ammo, too, because we're not going to lose this fight, and bullets beat facts any day of the week.

### About the Author

Oil on Canvas by Rembrandt Y. Picasso (provided courtesy of the Randy White Gallery of Headwear-Related Violence)

Dalton Pepper, seen here being assaulted for stealing a hat, is a serious academic and a patriotic American. He has a PhD in something to do with science from a university in the deep-south with a great football team. He is passionately interested in hearing people with opinions different from his own just shut up.
What the critics are saying?

"This book is the worst blight to be inflicted upon America since the Electoral College" _–Al Gore_

"If this doesn't win the Nobel Prize for books, we should go over to Switzerland and bomb that place back to the Ice Age." _–The blonde-haired guy on Fox & Friends who's not Brian Kilmeade_

"If you read just one book this year, it should absolutely be the Bible. If you read one other book this year, buy yourself a TV, Professor Smartpants. Impeach Obama." _–Sarah Palin_

"Amazing. Awesome. Brilliant. Terrific. Fantastic. Wondrous. Stupendous" _–Roget's Thesaurus_

"I'm sorry sir/madam, we do not accept unsolicited manuscripts for review. Please try the New York Post—that POS will print anything." _–The New York Times_

"This is a book that I would have written if I had been raised in the Earth's rectum, but I was raised in its colon, so instead, I became funny, smart, rich, and famous." _–Stephen Colbert_

"Whether you're a fan of unintelligible footnotes, nonsensical footnotes, or simply extraneous footnotes, this book has something for everybody1." _–Harvard Review of Footnotes_

1Specifically, everybody who loves footnotes **.**

