What if global warming is not to blame for the recent Britney Spears’ psycho behavior?

Due to Al Gore documentary on global warming and several high profile celebrities calling for the world to pay attention, every John and Jane Doe is singing the wrath that is global warming.

As expected mainstream media has followed in line with their ‘what did global warming do last night’ updates.

It is factual that increases in temperature have been due to increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Logic obviously has it that it is because of the past century’s industrial growth that we have an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere thus the blame on human activity in causing global warming.

However is it possible that nature is as responsible for the change in weather as we are?

Research by two respected scientist show that “recent global weather patterns fall well within the range of natural historical climate variability, and that dramatic decreases of carbon dioxide emissions would have little or no affect on climate, at great social and economic costs.” – Source George C. Marshall Institute.

Is this argument ever presented to the public? Never, it does not fit in the agenda of the global warming campaign.

Assuming that the human element does contribute a percentage of the overall influence in global warming, we do need to take caution and measures to curb this influence.

What I am concerned about and irritated by; is every snow storm, heat wave, hurricane…etcetera nowadays being quickly blamed on the global warming phenomenon. Weren’t there any weather variations before the 17th century?

I do advocate for a global response but I also advocate for an informed public about all possible causes of global warming as well as possible solutions.

12 thoughts on “What if global warming is not to blame for the recent Britney Spears’ psycho behavior?


    “In 1989, the Marshall Institute released areport arguing that “cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases.”

    Although it was refuted by the IPCC, the report was used by the Bush Sr. Administration to argue for a more lenient climate change policy. GMI has since published numerous reports and articles attacking the Kyoto protocol and undermining the climate science.

    The Institute received $5,757,803 since 1985 from conservative foundations.

    George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (DISCLOSED FIGURES)

    So we can guess which side of teh aisle they are on …

  2. 3N,
    Actually, the measured changes in the composition of the atmosphere dwarf anything that could be attributable to “natural historical climate variability”. The vast majority of the scientific community is agreed upon this.

    While not every single weather event is directly attributable to global warming, taken as a whole, the events do indicate that something “unnatural” is at work here. Unseasonal weather, increased storm strengths, mass extinctions of species etc. coupled with the rate of carbon dioxide emissions are indicators that we are living beyond our means environmentally.

    I would suggest that you watch the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” for a better understanding of how human activity is affecting the earth.

  3. gathara, the argument here is whether the variations and extremes you mention have occurred before. We do not have weather records for more than 2 centuries what if prior to recorded weather; there was a period of turmoil weather conditions such as this.
    I will also watch the movie on your recommendation.

    JM, The Marshall institute is a non partisan research center and it allows for all the opinions. I am not surprised that the Bush administration took advantage of this and searched for anything that could fit their policy agenda.
    My question is, even though the view of nature contributing to global warming is not strongly supported, should we dispute it without considering it?
    By the way when it comes to funding I am certain that just like most non governmental organizations the Marshall Institute receives donations from all possible sources including Republican biased companies. This does not render their research useless.

  4. Let’s even assume that that it’s 50-50 that global warming is causing all these extremities in weather …

    Where would you rather lean?

    Personally, I am definitely leaning towards reducing the emissions. Profit motives should not derail those efforts because we are jeopardizing future generations.

    Mind you, it’s very few powerful individuals who are against these measures. These guys will do anything for a coin and am not sure the term “future” features in their vocab.

    Quite selfish indeed.

  5. Mwangi, I agree that we cannot let Cheney & Co make decisions on global warming. They are only motivated by money.
    My beef is with ignorance by debate around global warming. Especially with mainstream media who are too eager to blame any weather changes on GW. When it gets hot during the summer blame it on GW; when it is too cold during winter blame it again on GW…etcetera

  6. Speaking of ignorance, you seem unaware that by studying ice cores in the arctic and in Antarctica, scientists can deduce much about climatic conditions thousands of years ago. So we actually do have a very long record and it shows that we are living in exceptional times. Watch the film, baba.

  7. gathara a bit harsh on the ignorance…
    anyway I am well aware of studying ice cores for historic weather patterns – thanks to national geographic channel.
    In fact in the documentary I watched they noted there were unexplained spikes in weather conditions that they couldn’t explain – I assume research on this is ongoing.
    Note that I am not arguing that human activity has no effect on GW; I acknowledged that in the post. My point is that we should also listen to those who discount as to what extent our activity has on GW.
    Also I noted my qualms with every other weather man on news associating any drastic change in weather to global warming.

  8. 3N: I am still not getting your point …
    Why should we listen to those who are saying there’s no GW?
    So that we can continue with emissions if they convince us that GW is a myth?
    I don’t see what value there is to be derived from paying them heed ???

  9. mwangi, no one is saying there is no GW. They are questioning what factor humans play in causing it. They are saying our impact is less than most are led to believe.

  10. Poor Journalsism and Hollywood is often to blame for sensationalizing the effects of Global Warming, I believe that human activity has an effect on the earths climate and that the effects may be felt sooner rather than later. Obviously there are lobbies that are more interested in the profits that can be obtained by continued use of Fossil Fuels but their concerns should not be used to dissuade other opposite minded individuals and governments from persueing other alternatives. It is a pity when these lobbies result to faulty science to justify their refusal to accept that we need to take drastic action to halt this impending catastrophy which I might add may not be seen by our generation.
    @Gathara, I’m off to Amazon.com to look for an Inconvenient Truth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s