Rebuttal to "The Nonsense of Global Warming" by Paul Johnson

by Tara Nicole Lang Chapman

January 2008



This summer's atrocious weather tempted me to tease a Green whom I know. "Well, what about your weather theory now?" (One of the characteristics of Greens is that they know no history.) He replied: "Yes, this weather is unprecedented. England has never had such an August before. It's global warming, of course." That's the Greens' stock response to anything weather-related. Too much sun? "Global warming." Too little sun? "Global warming." Drought? "Global warming." Floods? "Global warming." Freezing cold? "Global warming."

Well, yes, if one area is too hot, another area may be too cold.  If one area is being flooded terribly, that means another is suffering from drought.  Instead of everything being normal, things extremely abnormal.  One area may be affected one way at one time, and another area is affected in a different way.  Global warming is the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  One must not forget the law of thermodynamics.  Heat is always moving.  Heat will migrate, and so one area may get extremely hot, while another ends up freezing. But overall, things ARE heating up.  Carbon dioxide levels are rising, and oxygen is likely decreasing.  

I wish the great philosopher Sir Karl Popper were alive to denounce the unscientific nature of global warming. He was a student when Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was first published and then successfully tested. Einstein said that for his theory to be valid it would have to pass three tests. "If," Einstein wrote to British scientist Sir Arthur Eddington, "it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature, then the whole theory would have to be abandoned."

To Popper, this was a true scientific approach. "What impressed me most," he wrote, "was Einstein's own clear statement that he would regard his theory as untenable if it should fail in certain tests." In contrast, Popper pointed out, there were pseudo-scientists, such as Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Marx claimed to be constructing a theory of scientific materialism based on scientific history and economic science. "Science" and "scientific" were words Marx used constantly. Far from formulating his theory with a high degree of scientific content and encouraging empirical testing and refutation, Marx made it vague and general. When evidence turned up that appeared to refute his theory, the theory was modified to accommodate the new evidence. It's no wonder that when communist regimes applied Marxism it proved a costly failure.

Freud's theories were also nonspecific, and he, too, was willing to adjust them to take in new science. We now know that many of Freud's central ideas have no basis in biology. They were formulated before Mendel's Laws were widely known and accepted and before the chromosomal theory of inheritance, the recognition of inborn metabolic errors, the existence of hormones and the mechanism of nervous impulse were known. As the scientist Sir Peter Medawar put it, Freud's psychoanalysis is akin to mesmerism and phrenology; it contains isolated nuggets of truth, but the general theory as a whole is false.

The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels--the essence of the Greens' theory of global warming--has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.

Global warming is a fact, and anyone who can't see the obvious has their head stuck in the ground or somewhere else where it doesn't belong.  Firstly, it has nothing to do with Marxism or Freudianism.  What has been done here is that the author mislead the reading audience off to a subject that he predicted would get agreement, and then he turns back to global warming.  There are so many people who are already brainwashed and don't question much about what they read, that the author already has those people on his side, because they agreed with the Marxism comments.  We haven't had quite the awful activity on this planet to the extent we have now any time in our recent history.  It doesn't take a neurosurgeon to see the obvious--that we are abusing the planet's resources and are being very wasteful and pollutive.  Why anyone would want to pump out dead "rock oil" (petroleum) from under the earth?

Those who buy in to global warming wish to drastically curb human economic and industrial activities, regardless of the consequences for people, especially the poor. If the theory's conclusions are accepted and agreed upon, the destructive results will be felt most severely in those states that adhere to the rule of law and will observe restrictions most faithfully. The global warming activists' target is the U.S. If America is driven to accept crippling restraints on its economy it will rapidly become unable to shoulder its burdens as the world's sole superpower and ultimate defender of human freedoms. We shall all suffer, however, as progress falters and then ceases and living standards decline.

What a fool.  Consequences for the poor?  How is our capitalist, materialistic society helping the poor?  How is our dependence on petroleum helping the poor?  Quite the contrary.  This makes absolutely no sense.  Here again, I believe the author is just pulling stuff out of his hat to get to the emotions of his readers.  We shall SUFFER if we stop drilling the toxic petroleum from the earth and destroying the trees????  Rather, we are suffering by doing this.  YEAH, the target SHOULD be us in the United States.  We're the ones robbing everyone on the planet of their trees and other natural resources.  We are not doing things in a Godly way.  There is absolutely NO excuse for pumping for petroleum.  The technology is already available to be doing things much more earth- and people-friendly.  The MAIN reason we are still drilling for oil is because the rich people who are being benefitted from it bribe our lawmakers so that the practice is continued.  

When I'm driving to my country home in Somerset, I pass two examples of the damage Greens can cause when their views are accepted and applied. Thanks to heavy government subsidies, many farmers switched from growing food to biofuel crops--perhaps the most expensive form of energy ever devised. The result has been a world shortage of food, with near starvation in some places, and a rise in the cost of food for everyone. We're now getting wise to this ridiculous experiment; shares in biofuels have fallen, and farmers are switching back to their proper work. But the cost has been enormous. know, perhaps if people would think to stop banning cannabis hemp, we could use it for biofuel (it produces MUCH more than corn), and we could have plenty of fuel and food, as well as other products.  EVERYTHING that petroleum can make, cannabis can make, except without the pollution.  And cannabis can be used to make MANY more products than petroleum can.  Hemp also cleans up the environment and grows very quickly.  It would also prevent so many trees from being cut down, as it can be used for boards, paper, etc. which is even better than tree boards and paper.  Biofuels are not a dangerous experiment.  However, petroleum has been.  Maybe using corn has been a mistake.  But, cannabis hemp would not be.  But biofuels aside, because I think there are better ideas than wide scale use of biofuels, the VAST MAJORITY of the food crops grown are fed to livestock in factory farms.  Does Paul know this?  Would he be willing to cut his meat consumption? We in America (some individuals much more than others) eat enough meat to feed the entire world.  That would end a lot of other evils regarding factory farms:  evils done to the animals, the environment, and to us.  I don't have the time nor space in this article to go in depth on that, but those who are truth-seekers either already know these things or can certainly go read about this or watch documentaries on this topic.

The other thing I pass is a new windmill, spinning slowly around. Windmills were the great invention of the early Middle Ages--man harnessing nature and using it to replace muscle power. When I was a boy more than 70 years ago there were still a few windmills, but nobody doubted they were on their way out. The thought of going back to wind power would have seemed preposterous. Nevertheless, under pressure from Greens this has happened. Wind power is a grotesquely expensive and inefficient form of energy, and the new windmills are hideous things, ruining the landscape and making an infernal noise.

What a hypocrite!!!!  Windmills are hideous and ruin the landscape and make a horrible noise??  What does ol' Paul think oil derricks do?!  Oil derricks are much uglier and landscape-ruining than windmills.  And they're noisy, too.  What a fool.  I wonder whether most people reading his article thought about what a stupid argument this was about the windmills.

Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof--of which history offers so many examples--that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don't they just turn to the genuine article? 

Indeed, people can be suckers on a grand scale.  There's NO doubt about this.  Science has demonstrated that we ARE experiencing global warming, and people like Paul Johnson doesn't want to give up his materialistic lifestyle of depending on petroleum.  These are the people who are suckers.  Furthermore, it is mostly so-called "conservative Christians" who make up the majority of petroleum-supporting, global-warming-denying people.  They are FAR from being conservative, though, because pumping that crap out of the ground and wiping out our forests on a grand scale is NOT conservative.  And these are the same "suckers" who teach people that Sunday is God's day of worship, that Christmas and Easter are the most important holy days of the year, and that people are immortal and either go to heaven with some "trinity" god or to an ever-burning hell upon death, despite HISTORY showing the TRUTH that mainstream Christianity adopted the heathen holy days and gave them "Christian" names.  THESE are the people who don't know their history....or maybe they just choose to ignore it.

Back to Articles