Since it’s inception, there have been scientists that have been arguing that Global Warming isn’t true. As of the last few months it’s come under some serious opposition that actually might prove those scientists who disagree to be correct.
There are students here such as Jared Burke, who said, “I think the scientific information is overwhelming.”
Well, I want to put that science to the test. Okay, it’s not enough that Cincinnati had its mildest summer in about 60 years in 2009 and it broke the record snowfall amount for February this year. It’s not enough that Houston, Texas just had its earliest snow in recorded history, also in 2009.
USA Today published an article Nov. 30, 2009 about the thousands of e-mails that were leaked from East Anglia University in England on the topic of Global Warming. These e-mails were dated from 1996-2009, a 13-year stretch. These e-mails discussed that people have lost their jobs as a result of speaking out against global warming, and that people involved in research for global warming have ignored important data and models that could very well prove it wrong.
It’s hypocritical enough that Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle took separate jets to travel 4,000 miles to Copenhagen and back — all just to have their request that the 2012 Olympics be held in Chicago rejected, according to an article by Penny Starr, Senior staff writer for CNSNews.com that came out Sept. 30, 2009.
Obama also returned to Copenhagen for the Climate Change summit. This, of course, being held after the e-mails were leaked from East Anglia University. This time it was Nancy Pelosi and other members of congress taking a separate jet.
Since then, a couple more articles have now surfaced to discuss even more problems with the idea that global warming might actually be an issue. Both of which came out on Jan. 30 . The first one is from TimesOnline.co.uK titled “Climate Chief was Told of False Glacier Claims before Copenhagen.”
According to this article, “Ra-jendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.”
According to an article at Telegraph.co.uk that came out the same day, titled, “UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article,” “Some researches have expressed exasperation at the IPCC’s use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.”
When interviewing student, Matt Cahal, he mentioned that he believes in global warming but “Unfortunately it’s politicized.” Matt mentioned that NASA did some research that showed the last decade to be the warmest ever.
The problem is, that the numbers do matter, according to an article by the Washington Times that came out Dec. 3rd of 2009, titled ‘Global warming controversy reaches NASA Climate Data.’
Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states.”
One also has to take into consideration other credible individuals such as John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel filed a law- suit, with about 9,000 plus scientists behind him, against Al Gore because John Coleman, says “Global Warming; it is a scam.”
A documentary that is worth watching is by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) titled, “The Great Global Warming Swindle.”
The funny thing about this documentary is the fact that the BBC was originally trying to compose a documentary to prove global warming to be true. Yet, in the process of all of their information gathering, they discovered that it was only a farce! I can’t help but agree with all of the math that is used in this documentary as well as the fact that they point out that global warming is a political issue and not a scientific one; because the science has already been proven wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt to anyone who is actually willing to take a look at the numbers.
The only thing I disagree with is what they think the politics of it are.
There are a couple of facts listed in the BBC documentary that are just too devastating of a hit to climate change research to simply just be overlooked.
First off, volcanoes alone spew out more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas being blamed for global warming) than humans do every year. Every year between cars, trucks, SUV’s, boats, factories and by simply exhaling, we expend 6.5 gigatons of CO2.
You might think that this is quite a large amount. But when compared to Mother Nature, who produces 150 gigatons a year, between volcanoes, animals and even fall’s rotting leaves, it’s not.
When you do the math, humans only produce 4.1534% of all of the carbon dioxide every year.
“But, but, but…” you might say, “Al Gore in his ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ documentary said that there was a direct correlation between CO2 and heat and it was CO2 that produced that heat! How can you say this stuff?” This is something else that is also brought up in the BBC documentary.
Here’s how I can say this stuff; Al Gore was only half correct. Yes, there is a direct correlation between CO2 and heat; but, it is the heat that causes the rise in CO2, not the other way around.
How do I know this, because Al Gore massaged the graph…not the numbers, but the graph itself. CO2 lags behind heat by about 800 years. In other words, the world gets warm and then 800 years later, CO2 levels rise.
Al Gore shifted the back by 800 years to show that the two were going up and down at the same time. Glenn Beck mentions the same thing in his book, “An Inconvenient Book,” that if you look at the graph closely, you will see moments were the heat does rise before CO2 anywhere from 800 to a thousand years before CO2 if one bothered to crunch the numbers.
If Al Gore really wanted to massage the numbers correctly, he would have shifted the CO2 numbers forward another decade or two to actually show that CO2 goes up and then heat goes up. But he shows them going up and down at the same time and leads you to the false assumption that CO2 is causing the heat.
I disagree, though, on the BBC stance on the politics behind global warming. They say that it exists to hurt third-world nations. I say that it exists to help third-world nations by hurting developed countries. Why? Because of the Cap and Trade bill that Obama is looking to pass.
I am going to change the numbers to make the math easy and to bring the point across. First and foremost there is the corporate level. Each business will be given, let’s say, 100 “Carbon Credits.” If business A only uses 90 of that 100, they will be able to sell the remaining 10 to business B who used 110. Business B buys those 10 Carbon Credits to make up for the “sin” of using 10 too many. The plan is to then use this on an international level.
Let’s say each country is allowed 10 million Carbon Credits. If Ethiopia uses only 100,000 Carbon Credits and the U.S. Uses 19,900,000, then we can buy 9,900,000 Carbon Credits from Ethiopia. This takes money away from developed countries, such as the U.S. and gives it to undeveloped countries such as Ethiopia.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all about trying to help people, but it should be done on a voluntary basis instead of being forced. Not only forced, but forced by having to use a system that is based off of non-existing scientific information. There is quite the opportunity now that “Cap and Trade” won’t make it due to a shift in Senate seats. But it is the politics we should be worried about in this case scenario, not the false science leading us to believe there is something wrong with this planet.
Editorial by M. Gordon Willis