Published: 03 November 2003Upgraded: 13 December 2006
ACADEMIC PSEUDOSCIENCE

Abstract: Global Warming is not pseudoscience because it is a phenomenon that always has occurred cyclically in nature since the Earth was formed. However, the idea of a global warming caused by human activities is plain pseudoscience. There is not convincing scientific support that human emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will cause) a disastrous warming of the Earth’s atmosphere and the severe disturbance or change of the Earth’s climate. There is considerable evidence that the current warming is entirely natural and obeys to periodical changes in the planetary system. The attribution of the global warming to the carbon dioxide generated from human activities is a fallacy.

Surely you know almost all on the film "The Day After Tomorrow" where in it appears a catastrophic and fatalistic panorama for the terrestrial Northern Hemisphere. We are bombarded daily with information that makes us feel like the assassins of nature (ecocides) and as the direct cause of the Global Warming; but, is it real? Are we humans causing a Climate Change and destroying the world through our industrial, scientific and technological activities? The evidence says that we humans are not responsible of the Climate Change (which should be labeled like Climate Variability), but the nature itself.

The problem is that -for reasons more political than rational- some academies have been adhered to unwise radical-environmentalist grounds so they are being very selective on the publication and diffusion of scientific reports that are referring this matter. For example, if you have discovered some incongruence in the data handled by some authors, and you write a paper for its publication on a scientific magazine, the publishers would simply reject your paper without bothering themselves on reading it.

The selective publication of only those articles that match with the environmentalist ideology is dogmatism because they wish to compel their ideas through the authority and power that they wield on the diffusion of science. What they try to achieve is to hide the truth from the public comprehension pretending that there is a scientific “consensus” on the anthropogenic origin of the Climate Fluctuations. It is not futile to say that there is not any “scientific consensus” and that we do not acquire the true knowledge of the nature’s events (science) by “consensus”.

The academies should represent to true scientists, not to the politicians or the new social campaigners that try to get the absolute control of the energy resources.

The economic resources of all countries have been destined for an argument that is far from the action of humans, that is, for an event that we human beings have not caused and that we cannot resolve. Under these paragraphs, I describe five of the lies that have been disclosed like "scientific knowledge", by which, the preachers of the “global terrorism” have subjugated to all humans that trust the real science.

Pseudoscience is taking terrain easily and the hoaxers are investing much money in order to remain in their positions. The solution to stop them is in our hands. Honest scientists must let you know the truth on this subject, analyzing everything with critical will and only trusting who provide real data about the real nature of this ancient and recurring climatic incident. Science must not to be discredited by the aspirants to the world-wide funds (UNO).

I do not wish that in the future the people say that our science became a ridicule chaos because we heard that the “consensus” of politicians or we thought that movies (respectively, IPCC and Hollywood) and Wikipedia were more credible than nature phenomena.

BACK TO TOP^^



ACADEMIC SCIENCE VERSUS ACADEMIC PSEUDOSCIENCE

1. The Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) have told you that the global warming is a without-parallels-phenomenon by the last ten thousand years. This declaration widely spread by Media and several “scientific” magazines, is false. There was a global warming in the Medieval Age that was longer and more accentuated than the current global warming. (See a graph here and an external site here).

2. AGW proponents have told you that we human beings are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases through our industrial activities, and they have said that the atmospheric concentrations of those gases in the past has never been so high as in the present era. This is a blatant lie because we can see from the graph of geological timescale that the density of CO2 has been by much higher in other eras than at present, even when there were not industries and motorized vehicles in those times.

3. AGW proponents hide from you the fact that we did not create a single molecule of CO2 because matter is not created or destroyed, but transformed; so that, all the CO2 and the residual “greenhouse gases” that we are releasing to the atmosphere existed in other Geological Eras. Those gases were used by the photosynthetic living beings for growing and reproduction. Those photosynthetic organisms died and, by geological processes through billions of years, were transformed into the fossil fuels that we use today for our technological activities. The unique thing that we are doing is returning those gases to the atmosphere from where they were taken by the photosynthetic organisms. See a graph about CO2 concentrations in the Earth’s Geological Eras.

4. AGW proponents have said that the “greenhouse effect” is worse now than ever because the human beings are increasing the concentration of “greenhouse gasses” in the atmosphere. This is a fallacy because the current concentrations of “greenhouse gases” reach roughly 378 ppmv; however, in the Eocene, when anthropoids appeared, the concentration of CO2 was higher than 2050 ppmv (about 184% more than today), six times higher than the current concentrations! How can we survive under that “environmental catastrophe”? There were not cars, planes and human industry at those times, yet. See the next graph:

BACK TO PSEUDOSCIENCE
PSEUDOCIENCE ON GLOBAL WARMING
By Editorial Staff
BioCab.org. 03 November 2003

GLOBAL ACADEMIC PSEUDOSCIENCE

ACADEMIC SCIENCE VS. ACADEMIC PSEUDOSCIENCE

PSEUDOSCIENCE IS AT BOTH SIDES, AGWERS AND ANTIAGWERS

BIBLIOGRAPHY
"Procedere Secundum Naturam"
HOMEABOUT USE-MAIL USESPAÑOL
PSEUDOSCIENCE ON GLOBAL WARMING
®
designed with Homestead
Copyright© 2005 by Biology Cabinet Organization
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tell a friend about this page
®
HOMEABOUT USCONTACTESPAÑOL
®
Notice that when hominids appeared (in the Pliocene) the anomaly in the global temperature was 4° C higher than the highest present anomaly. Our change is merely 0.122 C. Observe also that the atmospheric CO2 concentrations obey to cyclical changes which origins are poor known.

5. AGW proponents avoid to make you know that the whole Solar System is crossing a region of Interstellar Cosmic Radiation (a Cosmic Cloud discovered by Alfred Vidal-Madjar and collaborators in 1976) that "will have drastic effects in Earth's Climate by the next 10,000 years" (A. Vidal-Madjar, C. Laurent and P. Bruston; 1977). This is evidence against the anthropogenic effect on the variability of climate of Earth because the effect is happening in every planet of the Solar System. The effect is taking place about 14 months after the encountering between our Solar System and the cloud because the Interstellar Cosmic Rays occurred at 100 AU (Astronomical Units) and the speed of the particles is 400 km per second. 100 AU are equivalent to 15000000000 Km, so, the Cosmic Rays remounting the Solar Wind from the Shock Bow take exactly 14 months, 9 days, 7 hours and 12 minutes on reaching the Earth. See a graph about the correlation between the Cosmic Cloud and the variability of tropospheric temperature on Earth.

BACK TO TOP^^




PSEUDOSCIENCE IS AT BOTH, AGW AND ANTI-AGW SIDES
(©14 October 2009)

We must tell you that this kind of pseudoscience is not privative of the anthropogenic global warming advocates; unfortunately, we find pseudoscience also at the skeptics' (anti-AGW) files.

The pseudoscience is most pronounced in the so-called "scientific blogs", which of scientific don’t have a hair.

The process of issuing at those “scientific” blogs consists on the publication of an article written by the owner of the blog or by any other person the owner had chosen for authoring an article.  Afterward, the article is exposed to the blog readers’ criticism. Each reader exposes arbitrarily his own opinion on the article. However, the greater part of those opinions has not been endorsed by scientific literature which has been ratified by Peer Reviews. As a result, through logical fallacy, the false knowledge or false science on any matter is spread. Often, the articles written and published by the blog owner, or by any of his friends, contain blunders and include pseudoscience or Antiscience.

A good example on this issue is the expression “Oceans’ Heat Content”, which is the preferred phrase of climatologists. Heat is not a state function, but a process function; consequently, heat cannot be contained by any system. It is a fallacy.

Another example comes from thinking that the gases of the stratosphere have absolutely dissimilar thermal properties with respect to the gases of the troposphere. Some solar physicists think the carbon dioxide in the stratosphere, whose concentration is ~340 ppmV, does not absorb the long-wave thermal radiation emitted by the surface of the Earth, land and oceans, but only the lower troposphere. It is a pseudoscience.

What is the purpose of those antiscientific people? Their purpose is to decompose clean science substituting it by personal beliefs. Most bloggers are creationists, phenomenologists, or solipsists. Many of them are a mixture of two or more antiscientific philosophies.

One of our staff members was offended and banned by the owner of a well known “scientific” blog (Watts Up With That, or WUWT) just for having quoted from a book on Radiative Heat Transfer, exposing the pseudoscience expressed by one of his moderators, called “Phil.”. As soon as our colleague corrected what "Phil." was arguing, the owner of the blog got extremely furious at our colleague, and insulted him by saying that his science was ridiculous (even when he had cited exactly the words of Dr. Modest which had been taken from his book on Radiative Heat Transfer. "Phil's" pseudoscience consisted on assuring that the radiation had nothing to do with emissivity and absorptivity, but with the electromagnetic spectrum. We are convinced the password for those blogs is "Say what I say, or you will be exiled". It surely is not science.

So do not think that pseudoscience comes only from the anthropogenic global warming party, but it comes also from the anti-anthropogenic global warming side.

We suggest you that, if you are not reading it from peer reviewed literature, or from academic texts or dissertations, doubt seriously on every bit from what you are reading.

You will find an excellent guideline on how to know whether it is pseudoscience or not at senseaboutscience. org.uk.

BACK TO TOP^^



BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Bluemle, John P. 1999. Global Warming: A Geological Perspective. Arizona Geology. Vol. 29. No. 4. http://www.azgs.az.gov/vol29no4.htm Last review on February 14, 2007

Pagani, Mark et all. Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleogene. Science; Vol. 309, No. 5734; pp. 600-603. 22 July 2005.

McKee, Maggie. Life waxes and wanes with bobbing of the Solar System. NewScientist.com. 30 March 2006. Revisado por última vez el 12 de Diciembre de 2006.

Santo Bains, Richard M. Corfield, Richard D. Norris. Mechanisms of Climate Warming at the End of the Paleocene. Science. Vol. 285. Issue 5428, pp. 724 - 727; 30 July 1999.

E. C. Stone et all. Voyager Explores the Termination Shock Region and the Heliosheat Beyond.Science; Vol. 309, pages 2017 - 2020. 23. September 2005.

Vidal-Madjar, A., Laurent, C., Bruston, P., Audouze, J. Is the Solar System Entering a Nearby Interstellar Cloud. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600.

BACK TO TOP^^