Is Global Warming a Myth?

The problem of Global warming is considered one of the most troubling issues of contemporary era. It has been noticed that the average air temperature in different parts of the world is being on constant rise, ever since the humanity’s existence began to depend more and more on exploitation of fossil fuels. Whereas, in 1870 the carbon fuel emissions in the air were almost non-existent, in 2000 their amount has reached 6 billion tons. Many scientists agree that it is this emission, which is being directly linked to Global warming, although there is no universal conformity, in regards to this matter. While burning, fossil fuels release large amounts of carbon-dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. This causes a so-called “greenhouse effect”, when sun’s energy does not reflect back into the space, but becomes trapped underneath the layer of greenhouse gases. In its turn, this leads to Earth’s atmosphere being excessively heated up. In its turn, this negatively affects the lives of people in variety of different ways.

Therefore, it is only logical that many people strongly associate Global warming with evil, which needs to be confronted, regardless of the cost. Some authors go as far as suggesting that even today; the process of Global warming prevents many people from having a normal life. Hans Baer is one of them. In his article “Global warming as a by-product of the capitalist treadmill of production and consumption – The need for an alternative global system”, he relates Global warming to the worsening of epidemiological situation around the world: “Global warming appears to be the primary impetus behind the spread of infectious-borne diseases to environments north and south of the equator and heat waves that threaten the lives and health of vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and the sick” (2008, p. 60). At the same time, there are many scientists who believe that people’s industrial activity in recent decades has very little to do with the fact that the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere seems to be on the rise – after all, the eruption of one large volcano emits as much CO2 into the atmosphere as do all coal-operated power plants in the world together, over the period of hundred years.

In his article “Global-warming myths”, Hoff Stauffer makes very good point when saying: “The debate on global warming is burdened with unfortunate misconceptions that inhibit progress in moving forward. One misconception is that “draconian measures” would be required to mitigate global warming” (1998, p. 14). In this paper, we will aim at revealing Global warming as being of essentially fictitious nature, which nevertheless does not prevent it from remaining one of the most effective tools of political lobbyism in contemporary world.

Global Warming And Science

The biggest problem with the issue of Global warming is the fact that there is no scientifically substantiated proof that “greenhouse effect” is being caused by people’s industrial activities alone. The editorial “There is no Global warming”, which can be found on the web site of American Policy Center, states: “Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling – very slightly -.037 degrees Celsius. In 1936, the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days” (2008). In other words, the Kyoto Protocol, which was introduced by UN to mitigate the effects of Global warming, can be best described as being based on semi-scientific assumptions – not the hard scientific facts. And, we are all aware of what happens when countries’ domestic and international policies are being adjusted to correspond to baseless assumptions – the story with “Iraqi’s weapons of mass destruction” can serve as the best example.

This is exactly the reason why Australia and U.S. were not in the big rush to sign up Kyoto Protocol, which presented industrialized and developing nations with their own quotas, in regards to the annual reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. The ultimate goal of Kyoto Protocol is to reduce such emissions worldwide by 10%-15%, before the year 2012. The countries that had signed the Protocol, agree to be subjected to UN monitoring, which is meant to insure that every particular signatory stays committed to its obligation, within the conceptual framework of Protocol. These obligations vary greatly, in accordance to geopolitical status of every country. For example, 137 developing countries that have signed Protocol, including Brazil, China and India, have no responsibilities under the agreement, beyond monitoring and reporting emissions, despite the fact that their share in global CO2 emissions is substantial.

What makes many people to doubt that Kyoto Protocol might benefit the environment is the fact that dealing with the issue of reduction of CO2 emissions has been delegated to UN’s bureaucracy. Throughout the history of this organization’s existence, there was no even a single instance of UN being able to deal with issues of global concern effectively. For example, it became a customary practice for the UN officials to begin their meetings with discussion of how to end “world’s hunger”, while the gap between poor and rich countries continues to widen rather rapidly. There are good reasons to believe that the same thing is going to happen with UN’s intention to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions, because this organization simply lacks the effective means to control the implementation of its own resolutions, and because these resolutions often appear being conceptually fallacious.

Situation in Asia and Africa

For example, China is one of world’s major producers of CO2, but despite this fact, Kyoto Protocol does not require this country to shut down its coal-operated power plants in the way it requires Western countries. At the same time, under protocol’s provisions, such “important” participants of Kyoto agreement as Ethiopia and Somalia, are made eligible for the large financial donations from developed countries, as the mean to encourage their citizens to become more “environmentally aware”. Thus, Kyoto Protocol appears to be nothing but another initiative of UN’s bureaucracy to legitimize the misuse of finances, on its part. Therefore, the issue of Global warming cannot be referred to as purely environmental. Apparently, it is being utilized to push neo-Liberal political agenda, which is the reason why more and more people grow increasingly skeptical about the effectiveness of proposed measures to improve environmental situation in the world.

As recent as twenty years ago, environmentalists were suggesting that the thinning of ozone layer over Antarctica was a direct result of people using aerosol sprays. In his article “A necessary apocalypse”, John Dunn says: “Ozone depletion did serve a useful Green purpose in drawing public attention to the atmosphere, and confusing people as to exactly what the problem was all about” (2007). However, in few years after the beginning of this environmental craze, it was proven that the usage of aerosol sprays could not be related to the widening of “ozone holes” over Antarctica. In fact, these holes had simply patched themselves up without any involvement, on the part of UN, within a matter of few years. As of today, there are no more talks about the dangers of aerosol sprays and about the wickedness of human race, which destroys its own environment by using these spays.

We cannot be sure that the same thing will not happen with the issue of Global warming. Numerous indications point out to the fact that the effects of Global warming are being artificially exaggerated and even invented: 1) It became a statement of good taste among neo-Liberal tree-huggers to express concern about Global warming every time they speak publically – in other words, even if there was not such a warming, it would have to be invented, in order to provide a legitimacy to environmentalists’ real agenda of extorting money from “evil” capitalists. 1) Scientists do not agree on Global warming’s exact causes, with many of them suggesting that the temporary increase in atmosphere’s average temperature occurs naturally and that is actually signifies the beginning of a new Ice Age in very near future. 3) The immediate effects of Global warming are going to remain negligible for at least another hundred years.

It appears very doubtful that the governments of different countries are going to be able to effectively tackle the issue of CO2 emissions, because most of world’s industrialized nations are democracies. The politicians in such countries are being rarely elected for longer than 4-5 years and their foremost concern has always been addressing the immediate needs of their voters, in order to expect reelection. Whatever is going to happen in 100 years from now cannot be referred to in terms of being the people’s primary concern, no matter how hard we try.


Even if Global warming was proven to relate to CO2 emissions and to pose an immediate danger to people’s well-being, there would be still not much we could do to improve the situation. It is important to understand that even a slight reduction of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere can be only achieved at the expense of eliminating the whole industries, which in its turn, would result in millions of people losing their jobs – a rather high price to pay for “saving the planet”, especially given the fact the actual essence of Global warming, as an environmental phenomenon, remains the subject of further debate. Therefore, as we have suggested earlier, Global warming cannot be referred to as being solely the environmental issue, simply because those who seek to obtain political dividends out of people’s fear of uncertainty are grossly exaggerating its potential dangers.

In their article “The Global warming myth and its selfish defenders”, John Baden and Tim O’Brien suggest that the issue of Global warming is being just too complex, in order for anyone’s opinion, in regards to the subject matter, to have an objective value: “The Global warming debate, like many environmental issues, is scientifically complex and highly emotional. Its complexity hinders informed debate and its emotionalism makes consensus elusive… Much of the problem can be traced to special interest’s manipulation of the political process” (1994). We can only agree with the authors – our lack of information about the causes of Global warming results in situation when it is hard for us to remain rational, while discussing the problem.

There are many indications as to the fact that, even if real, Global warming would not be effectively addressed, as it is the case with other “global” issues, such as combating AIDS, ending world’s poverty or finding a solution to end violence in the Middle East. Nowadays, the humanity is being assumed something united, which is why representatives of different nations are expected to equally share the concern about climatic tribulations, while in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. People from different cultural backgrounds cannot have common agenda and the situation with Global warming illustrates the validity of this suggestion perfectly well – citizens in Third World countries cannot possibly be concerned with the issue, simply because Global warming presents them with an opportunity to become biologically competitive. For example; whereas, White people cannot last long without air conditioners when temperature rises above 80 degrees, in India only 1% of houses are equipped with air conditioners and there are practically to heat related deaths in this country. Given the fact that the fundamental law of biology is being concerned with the survival of the fittest, it does not take a whole lot to realize that Global warming might give the people in Third World countries a competitive edge.

In the same article from which we have already quoted, John Baden and Tim O’Brien provide us with the insight on why citizens of Third World countries do not think of Global warming as an ultimate evil: “There are many benefits associated with increased atmospheric CO2. Doubling CO2 levels will favor bigger plants and may increase average crop yields by an estimated 33 percent. More atmospheric CO2 allows plants to grow using less water by reducing evapotranspiration – water evaporating after it is released from plants’ pores. Precipitation and soil moisture may rise, and droughts may become less frequent” (1994). It is the fact that environmental activists, which promote the idea that Global warming should be tackled by the mean of reducing emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere, are overwhelmingly White. Therefore, their tendency to project their apocalyptical anxieties onto environment appears to be nothing but sublimation of their existential inferiority. Today, White people constitute 6% of world’s population. By the year 2050, their percentage will shrink to 2%.


On subconscious level, White people feel that there is “something rotten in the kingdom of Denmark”, but they are being brainwashed to such an extent that they would rather associate the extinction of their race with changes to the environment rather than with their inability to adjust their birth rate to the birth rate of people in Africa, for example. This is why radical environmentalism is being strongly associated with political-correctness and with promotion of social utopias that are based on ideals of multiculturalism – apparently, White “sophisticates” are being increasingly deprived of their biological vitality, and their preoccupation with the issue of Global warming serves as an undeniable proof to this fact. Therefore, the best way to address Global warming is simply to simply wait until it proves to be the part of yet another environmental craze.


Baden, J & O’Brien, T 1994, The Global warming myth and its selfish defenders, Free Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment. Web.

Baer, H 2008, ‘Global warming as a by-product of the capitalist treadmill of production and consumption – The need for an alternative global system’, Australian Journal of Anthropology, vol. 19, no 1, pp. 58-62.

Bongaarts, J 1992, ‘Population growth and Global warming’, Population and Development Review, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 299-319.

Crook, C 2008, ‘Sins of emission’, Atlantic Monthly, vol. 301, no. 3, p. 32.

Demeritt, D 2001, ‘The construction of Global warming and the politics of science’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 307-337.

Donnelly, J 1990, ‘Global policy studies: A skeptical view’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 221-230.

Dunn, J 2007, A necessary apocalypse, American Thinker.

Fortune, M 2007, ‘Global warming: Myth of reality?’, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 88, no 1, pp. 84-89.

Jones, D. 1993, ‘Global warming and geomorphology’, The Geographical Journal, vol. 159, no. 2, pp. 124-130.

Lal, D 1995, ‘Eco-Fundamentalism’, International Affairs, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 515-528.

Mannion, A 1998, ‘Global environmental change: The causes and consequences of disruption to biogeochemical cycles’, The Geographical Journal, vol. 164, no. 2, pp. 168-182.

Rycroft, M 1990, ‘The Antarctic atmosphere: A hot topic in a cold cauldron’, The Geographical Journal, vol. 156, no. 1, pp. 1-11.

Stauffer, H 1998 ‘Global warming myths’, Technology Review, 1998. vol. 4, no. 5, p. 14.

There is no Global warming. 2008. American Policy Center. Web.

Vitousek, P 1994, ‘Beyond Global warming: Ecology and global change’, Ecology, vol. 75, no. 7, pp. 1862-1876.