Global Warming Revisited<\/p>\n
Climate Change has become a hot topic in today\u2019s world.
\nEveryone is saying the earth is warming but by how much, what are the causes
\nand is it a bad thing. The problem I have with the whole debate is although it
\nhas a science basis, it has long since been moved from the scientist domain to
\nthe political one. First we see the scientists, according to a recent poll, are
\n97% in agreement \u2026 or are they. <\/p>\n
\u00a0Before we start looking at the science, let\u2019s look at the
\n97% number. The poll says 97% scientist agree in Global Warming or Climate
\nChange including some skeptics. This is from an article published by John Cook,
\nthe Climate Communications Fellow at the University of Queensland. The article
\nfirst says nothing about the dangers or harm to the environment, the study just
\nstates that it\u2019s happening. Now when you dig into this article you find it\u2019s
\nnot scientist but rather articles that had anthropogenic climate change we
\nconsidered C02 as the blame for Global Warming in 13000 papers. Granted of
\nthose papers only 41 to 64 papers explicitly state that humans are the reason
\nfor climate change.<\/p>\n
\u00a0With that said, we need to look at the propaganda associated
\nwith this article. The article is presented with \u201cnews\u201d that states man is destroying
\nthe environment and we will die soon which makes the correlation that 97% all
\nagree with their catastrophic position. The desire is to stop all pollution and
\ngo to green energy. As nice as this sounds, we need to realize that this would
\ncause a large scale damage to mankind then a slow progression of finding
\ncleaner fuels. So when you review the hype and see what\u2019s happening, just look
\nat the solutions the politicians are doing. Mainly \u201cCarbon Tax\u201d is presented as
\nthe solution which taxes big polluters, AKA big business, which tax the output
\nwith the hopes it would end.<\/p>\n
\u00a0If you look at the money trail, the idea is to loot the
\ncoffers of big business for tax purposes (mostly for continued research) and
\nnot to stop carbon emissions. So we see a large scale propaganda machine
\nattached with this 97% number which has been shown to be fraudulent. But the
\n\u201cnews\u201d will not correct this the same way it pumped it up. So the classic
\npropaganda technique of telling a lie enough till it becomes truth has been
\nabused here.<\/p>\n
\u00a0Remember ALL the planets are experiencing Global Warming
\nwhich would imply the sun has a larger impact on the environment that mankind!!<\/p>\n
\u00a0While the data suggests warming and we see graphs that show
\nwide spread warming we fail to notice two major things with them. First, the
\ngraphs show less than a 1 degree rise since the mid 1800\u2019s. Second, it fails to
\nmention the margin of error in the collection of this data. I am sure the data
\nfrom the mind 1800\u2019s did not have the accuracy we can expect from today\u2019s
\ncollection instrumentation that has been developed for the climate scientists
\n(another money grab, but we will not explore this further here).<\/p>\n
\u00a0The biggest problems is not science behind Climate Change but
\nrather the hype of computer models that show dramatic changes. To be science
\nthey data must be \u201cfalsifiable\u201d to be real scientific models. A dramatic
\nexample of this was highlighted by Al Gore in his Global Warming documentary
\n\u201cAn Inconvenient Truth\u201d and his \u201chockey stick\u201d graph. This was a 2006
\ndocumentary that showed a catastrophic rise in temperature. The ice caps were
\nto be gone by now and we were going to be living in a much hotter environment
\nwith no polar ice caps. The model was not matched at all, the climate remained steady
\nand the ice caps grew. So, the computer model is proven wrong as viable
\nscience. Yet the only change in the presentation of this is the x-axis (the
\ntime line) or the y-axis (the amplitude) and not the dramatic curve.<\/p>\n
\u00a0Why are most of the computer models wrong? They assume the
\nearth is a much less stable system than it actually is. The \u201cfeedbacks\u201d in the
\ncomputer models to how the earth responds to the slight temperature rise from
\npollution. So alarmists tend to get the hype and press and REAL science is
\nignored. The reason for this is you must follow the bucks and how the funding
\nis divided out.<\/p>\n
\u00a0Think of it this way, the world wide pollution is getting
\nworse, especially in China. Why is this, our policies have forced these
\npolluting jobs and work overseas to economies that are not governed by bad
\nscience. With this we see the models continue to fail. Why do they fail? The
\n\u201cfeedbacks\u201d are based in amplifications due to water heating to produce more
\nwater vapor that creates a larger greenhouse effect and will therefore cause
\nmore overall warming. But what is not considered is if these same feedbacks
\nproduce clouds which reflect the warming rays.<\/p>\n
\u00a0The system we exist in called earth is very stable. Based on
\ngeology we see many \u201ccatastrophic\u201d events in earth\u2019s history that caused
\nradical shifts in the environment including volcanoes and meteorites. We never
\nseem to notice that the system returns to a stable state and eventually cleans
\nitself out. One only needs to look at a 1988 study by Dr. James Hansen that
\nshows a model of increased temperatures of .8 degrees by today. Subsequent
\nreality shows the temperatures have bounced up and down yet remained stable
\nthroughout those years with current models showing a drop from 1988.<\/p>\n
\u00a0In 2003 we deployed the Argo system which accurately
\nmeasured temperatures over 2000 meters and have 3000 buoys. Since this system
\nwas deployed, we have seen measurements have remained relatively flat. On the
\nother hand global ocean temperatures are still shown on the rise based on data
\ncollection from the mid to late 1800 where ships would measure ocean
\ntemperatures via throwing a bucket overboard and measuring with crude devices.
\nWe never are show the margin of error from these collections or in the
\ncalculations but rather are just fed the data as true. So while the models fail
\nwe see the presentation of the data is also failing.<\/p>\n
\u00a0So while some data that shows increasing temperatures (a
\nScientific America article shows temps over the last 100+ years rising 1.6
\ndegrees as the most radical found) we have just as many that shows things are
\nstable. Unfortunately while I do not disagree something may be amiss, I know
\nthat data collection in 1880 to data collection today is vastly different in
\naccuracies and could account for a margin of error of 1.6 degrees.<\/p>\n
\u00a0Because the science is not rock solid, I just feel a more
\nlogical and measured approach needs to be followed to reduce pollution and
\nincrease safety for mankind.<\/p>\n
\u00a0Now don\u2019t get me wrong, this is not a blog that supports big
\nbusiness and pollution. I abhor what we do to the environment and am spooked at
\nhow blinded our politicians who are paid to ensure our safety ignore because
\nthey get more from special interests. I believe a more measured approach should
\nbe done to help clean up our environment. Take civil defense, there was not a
\nprofit motive to protect our nation from the communist threat. The government
\nhad to fund these projects to ensure our countries safety. Today we see
\npollution as a large threat but is not a problem with our country and really
\nhas no large profit motive.<\/p>\n
\u00a0Follow me here, we can make laws that clean up our
\nenvironment yet does nothing for other countries around the world. Eventually,
\nthese laws and market forces caused Adam Smith\u2019s \u201cInvisible Hand\u201d to move
\nbusiness offshore were it was less restrictive to produce products. The result
\nis actually more pollution and sure it\u2019s not in \u201cour backyard\u201d it is still a
\nglobal problem (consider Fukishima for an example of one country effecting
\nmany).<\/p>\n
\u00a0What we can do is divert funds to a \u201cSkunk Works\u201d style
\nproject for energy development (for those who do not know the Skunk Works was
\nLockheed\u2019s Cold War secret defense projects). We remove the profit motive by
\nmaking the technology public domain so that third world counties can easily
\nadapt these new sources and produce a cleaner backyard for themselves. This way
\nthe world will benefit and mankind will be safe. The will not be safe from
\nClimate Change whose causes are still debatable but from having a source of
\nclean reliable energy.<\/p>\n
\u00a0Think of the internet today. That was a byproduct of the
\ndefense industry spending that was eventually used for the common good.<\/p>\n
\u00a0As we look at other solutions, why not stop this wide spread
\nconsumerism? That is really driving most of the environmental pollution we see
\ntoday. Why would the government not put a stop to all this crap we get just to
\nhave more junk? It would reduce emissions, landfill and waste yet it would also
\neliminate monies from taxes paid for the profits and sales for said junk.<\/p>\n
That is why in the end the government may never do anything other than charge
\nCarbon Taxes, since that will only profit them. Clean and cheap energy does
\nnothing for them in the long run other that lower their overall tax revenue.<\/p>\n
Link for 97% consensus fraud: Link on data issues with Climate Change models: Climate Change in 12 minutes from a Skeptic: My Blog that some consider wacko as they somehow cannot A Skeptics Case: Article Supporting Global Warming: If you want to see my slant on Evolution \u2026 check out: BIG NOTE – As I finished this .. THIS JUST IN FOSSIL FUELS CAUSE COOLING: Global Warming Revisited Climate Change has become a hot topic in today\u2019s world. Everyone is saying the earth is warming but by how much, what are the causes and is it a bad thing. The problem I have with the whole debate is although it has a science basis, it has long since been moved … Continue reading “Global Warming Revisited”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[10,11],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=96"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/emailsfromdad.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU<\/a><\/p>\n
https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=T2J8zEJHIg8<\/a><\/p>\n
https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc<\/a><\/p>\n
\nunderstand science of Climate Change and the politics:
http:\/\/journeythroughbible.tumblr.com\/post\/131942732613\/propaganda-climate-change-and-creation<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n
https:\/\/mises.org\/daily\/5892\/The-Skeptics-Case<\/a><\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.scientificamerican.com\/article\/no-pause-in-global-warming\/<\/a><\/p>\n
http:\/\/journeythroughbible.tumblr.com\/search\/evolution<\/a><\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.express.co.uk\/news\/uk\/628524\/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"