Global Warming

There are several different issues that are being muddled together under this topic, with firm opinions being imposed on known and unknown hypotheses alike. I’ll try to sort some of it out here. This will be concise, only 990 words.

  1. Is the planet warming?

Answer: Possibly. A massive propaganda campaign has been in motion for a number of years asserting that the weather of the planet is warming and that human activity is causative. But the fact that there is a propaganda campaign is not evidence that it is happening. Yet it may be warming; there is no conclusive evidence that it is not. If it is warming it may be a short term or a long term event but there is no evidence of which and all extrapolations from short term data are meaningless. Short term fluctuations in atmospheric temperature occur naturally and like everything else in nature the only constant is change.

  1. If the planet is warming is it caused by human activity?

Answer: There is no evidence of this. In laboratory experiments CO2 has been shown to absorb infra-red radiation, converting certain frequencies of the light energy to heat. This prevents the infra-red energy from radiating into space and contains the heat from the sun’s light in the Earth’s atmosphere. Methane in the atmosphere has a similar effect. These effects have been observed only in laboratory experiments and they have been extrapolated to occur generally in the atmosphere.[1] There is no evidence that this source of global warming is occurring in the atmosphere.

These events happen all the time and have occurred as long as the Earth has had an atmosphere. The issue of whether the minute change, if there is any change, in the composition of the atmosphere that human action has caused an increase in the overall climate is an unanswered question. Like a lot of unsupported assertions it is not possible to prove or to disprove any effect of these events. The claims that it is happening and that it is dangerous are the stuff of propaganda.

There is also an increasing rate of photosynthesis as the result of any increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, which works to reduce it and to seek equilibrium. This of course is never mentioned in the propaganda.

  1. Is climate change a natural event?

Answer: Yes. Great variations in the Earth’s climate have changed during the history of the planet. There is no dispute on this. The Earth has, at times in its past, been covered with ice and at other times it has been a sultry swamp. The causes of these extreme conditions are unknown.

  1. If it is changing what is the time frame?

Answer: Again, this is unknown. Propaganda deals in hysteria and hysteria is not concerned with details. We don’t know the time frames of past climate changes any more than we know what caused them. It’s all guesswork since there is no way to test climate hypotheses experimentally. If the climate is changing it has been a long time coming and likely will proceed at a rate that can be adapted to over the coming generations of humanity. The great danger of climate change is that it will melt polar ice and raise sea levels. This result has not been observed though it is being closely watched.

  1. In the event of impending climate change will it be more effectual to to prevent the change or to cope with it?

Answer: This is rudimentary. The collective arrogance of the species homo sapiens has no bounds. The idea of interfering with a change in the planet’s climate is well beyond the aspiration of flying to Mars and back. But the cost of such a mega-project is immense and any chance of success is no more than a faint hope. Anybody wanna buy a lottery ticket? Coping on the other hand is doable and yields predictable results.

  1. Finally, how does one separate news from propaganda and do politicians really lie?

Answer: Words almost fail me on this one. Lying is the methodology of politics and is more intensive and transparent now than it has been at any time during my lifetime, which is a long time as I am an octogenarian. The people who are the most vocal and certain about the evanescent and mysterious pronouncements of politicians are generally the least informed.

Detecting fraud is an endlessly difficult game and I’m not going any farther into it except to say that no one has completely mastered it, least of all those of us who only know what we learn from the news as filtered and conditioned by our life experience. You have to look at these things with skepticism and apply your intelligence.

There is, however, a type of propaganda that is distinctly recognizable and H. L. Mencken described it thus:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
— H. L. Mencken

In other words, politicians are endlessly crying “Wolf.” Global warming certainly looks like one of these. It’s a time-worn and world-weary grab for more power over the public. This generally takes the form of more taxation and regulation. If it is anything else there is a heavy obligation on its promulgators to distinguish it as such. The assertion of a novel fact carries with it the burden of proof. In the case of global warming there has been no effort to even approach that burden. It has only been presented with the routine emotional appeal and voluminous repetition that is the hallmark of propaganda. Recalling the fable of Chicken Little, a careful and cautious inquiry is awaited.

The only rational presumption is based on long experience and probability which is that any passing cries of imminent disaster are only another political power game. When an event of Pearl Harbor magnitude occurs there is no mistaking it. No propaganda is necessary. For the rest of Mencken’s hobgoblins the smart money is betting that this too will pass.

Doomsday climate forecasts are a common event. They alternate between disastrous warming and disastrous cooling. Consider this somber forecast by Peter Gwynne in Newsweek Magazine, in 1976:

“This [global cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century ”

© 2026 Thomas A. Nelson Sr

So, what do you think?