Global Warming Truth Part 3

Countering the countering by countering.

There is a professor, I didn't catch his name, made a “documentary” countering the “Great Global Warming Swindle”. It looks like a very bad Power Point presentation and is mostly conjecture.

He says things like, never mind that there is 600,000 years of data in ice core samples, our contribution to CO2 is changing the natural cycle and now temperature does drive CO2. Isn't it funny how they use the figures until we used the same figures to show them where they are wrong and now they say man's activity is changing those figures? Do we really want to make global economic changes on your theory?

The last thing he said is that the Great Global Warming Swindle took things “out of context”. When you watch it, which I don't recommend, you will see that he did a lot of creative editing.

Bottom line. If you say a lie loud enough and with conviction, it will eventually become the truth. That is why we must say the truth just as loud, so the truth does not fall victim to the propaganda.

The surprising conclusion.

I think that we, America, should be doing every thing we can to find an alternative to gas and oil. Not for ecology reasons, rather economic reasons. We should get off of foreign oil. We should never be in a position that would allow another country to hold oil over us.

The fortunate side effects are lower local pollution, which I think IS a problem in some areas. This will not happen until the market wants it. I think it is slowly moving that way. My advice to the Alarmist, wait. The market will be giving you what you want, just wait.

One more observation. As I stated before, trees and decaying leaves are a major contributer to CO2 (more than humans), so we should get rid of all the trees. Let's say Edith is a tree hugger and is a member of the Arbor Day Foundation. Let's say Kate is very much into the religion of Global Warming Alarmist. The Arbor Day branch of the eco-idiots will clash with the Earth Day branch. So, you might say that the liberals can't have there Kate and Edith too. (Ok, that was bad, but the point was valid.)

In interest of full discloser, I am not a scientist or professor, so my mind has not yet been ruined by higher education. I can read and I can comprehend. I rely heavily on a spell checker and I think, therefore I am dangerous.

Global Warming Truth Part 2

Ok, so if our car and Rosey's breath is not causing Global Warming, what is?

Glad you ask. Mainly, the sun. The earth's temperature is constantly rising and falling, always has. No time in our history has it stayed steady for long. The major error with some scientist today is they see a rise and assume that it will continue to rise. In the 70's, we heard “Global Cooling”. If you bring this up, the Warming crowd will tell you that the scientist never said that and it was just media. Wrong. Some scientist were playing around with the idea of INCREASING CO2 and other gases to raise the temperature in a feeble attempt to “save the planet”. The reason is, around the late 1800's the temperature started to rise and continued till 1940. The early 1940's was a period of a booming industry, due to the war. Lots of new plants, spewing CO2 in the air. But, temperature took a southernly turn and we cooled slightly. This continued till the mid 70's. Scientist erred in assumed that it would continue to cool. It started to warm and has continued since. Now scientist, not all, but some, say that it will continue to warm. They are right. I think it will warm till around 2011 to 2022. More on this later.

The problem is computer models. We are relying on something that could be made to say anything, either by miscalculations or more devious reasons. There is an old computer acronym that is not used much anymore that fits well here. GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out.). Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Leader at NASA, said “Climate models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them, and they have hundred's of assumptions. All it takes is for one of these assumptions to be wrong, for the forecast to be way off.”

I think Dr. Spencer is being nice. I think some of these models are manipulated to say what the author wants. There was a computer model that measured the ice at in the polar regions that was recently revised because they discovered the findings to be off. The difference would seemingly support the global warming crowd, but what they really should be looking at is the computer model itself and note how unreliable they really are. You could literally make a computer model say we will burst into flames within the next week and freeze a week after that.

Now, to answer the “burning” question, “why are we heating up?” I was asked recently if I really thought that man had nothing to do with global warming. I wonder sometimes how people can go outside and look at something as powerful as the sun, then say we did something to change temperature. I have jested with some and blamed sun spots, except I was not really kidding. In the next few paragraphs, I will lay out what I believe makes the most sense as to what is warming our planet (as it is Mars and Venus, which we currently don't occupy, although I hear that there is plans for a Wal-Mart on Mars).

In the early 20^th century, scientist discovered that the earth is constantly bombarded by sub atomic particles, or cosmic rays, originating from a distant super nova's demise.

Particles meet water vapor to make water droplets, which in turn, create clouds. When the sun is more active, “solar winds”, created by the sun's activity, make it harder for particles to get through. Therefore, fewer clouds are formed, and we are hotter. More clouds, the cooler we are. Less clouds, the hotter we are.

When you compare particle activity and temperature, you find that when there is more particles, creating more clouds, the temperature falls. When there is less particles, causing less clouds, the temperature goes up.

Climate is controlled by the clouds, clouds are controlled by the particles, or cosmic rays, cosmic rays are controlled by the sun.

This brings me to my 2011-2022 prediction. The good people at NOAA reported that around 2011, solar activity should decrease. If that is the case, then according to what I just stated, the global temperature should go down or start to decline by 2022 and level off as early as 2011. No doubt, the followers of the right reverend Al Gore, will claim that their efforts are finally paying off. Denial is not just another river Kerry wasn't in on Christmas '68.

They already changed the F scale for tornado's. What was an F3 is now an F5. We recently had an F5 on the new scale hit Greensburg, KS. Fox News reported that experts say the wind was around 205 mph. Now on the new scale, that is an F5, or properly reported, an EF5. It was bad, but where would it land on the old scale? Considering that there may be a margin of error on the method the “experts” used to calculate the speed is +/-5 mph, that puts the tornado a strong F3 or a weak F4, as it is right on the line. Meteorologist should include the 'E' but mark my word, someone will try to link these “F5's” to the “stronger” storms they have been promising because of Global Warming.

To be Continued.

Global Warming Truth Part 1

I found a wonderful documentary on YouTube. It is called The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is just over an hour long and tells the truth about Al Gore and Global Warming. I suggest anyone that has been forced to watch the scientifically challenged “Inconvenient Truth”, watch this to learn the truth.

I normally just tell people my opinion on my blog, but I have listened to morons on TV tell us that we are evil because we don't buy into their religion. So, I decided to dig a little deeper.

Let me start on a positive note. Al Gore said something that resembles the truth. He said that there is no doubt that there is a link between CO2 and the rise in temperature. He is right. He also said that the relationship between the rise in temperature and CO2 levels are “complicated”. Why did he say that? He is so good about explaining things. There is a good reason why he skirted this point. If he told you the facts, the rest of his blatherings would not make sense. He is 180 degrees off.

The data he sited is from ice core samples taken in several places globally. EVERY ONE of those studies said the same thing. CO2 rise FOLLOWS temperature rise. Hmmmm, that would mean that man's contribution to the CO2 level is NOT causing temperature to go up. Sorry Al. CO2 lagged behind temperature ranges between 100 to 1200 years.

When Rosey talks, CO2 goes up 10%.

Ok, not really.

If Al Gore's complications are not enough to convince you, then consider this: CO2 is not a “major” green house gas. Green house gas comprises of several gases, including Water Vapor (95%) and CO2 (0.054%). There are around 5 or 6 gases, including CO2 that barely make up 1%. Of the fraction of a percent, you would wonder how much CO2 man is really responsible for and why isn't the other gases picked on? First, how much?

If you listen to the press, you would think that we are completely responsible for CO2. Not even close. Decaying leaves, Animals, Volcano's and the Ocean's contribute much more than man. Man contributes about 6%. That is 6% of 0.054%. Pretty minor. Ocean's are the biggest culprit, and the main reason for the aforementioned CO2 lag. CO2 is released as the ocean warms. Ever fill up a full size, heated swimming pool? How long did it take to warm up? It takes a while. Now think, if it takes a pool this long to warm up, how much longer does it take the ocean? A few hundred years? See the puzzle start to fit?

Professor Tim Ball, Dept of Climatology, University of Winnipeg, said “My car is not running very well, so I'm going to ignore the engine, which is the Sun, and I'm going to ignore the transmission, which is Water Vapor, and I'm going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel, which is the human contribution of CO2. The science is that bad.”

Now, why are we picking on poor CO2? Lets take one of the other minor gases, methane, which some studies suggest is 21% more effective as a green house gas than CO2. Al Gore can't make a connection between methane and industry, so he would not be able to convince us that we can do something about it, like pay his company for our “carbon footprint”. If he could find a way to regulate cow farts, he still wouldn't. See regulation is control and control is power. That is what Al Gore is after. Controlling industry, and us. Not just him, all of the global warmingist are either on a power trip or to stupid to figure it out on their own. I mean, if people can't see past Al Gore's carbon footprint scam, nobody can help them.

Here is what happened, over-simplified. Scientist discover temperature change, tells government. The government says to track it, here is a lot of $$$. Scientist quickly figure out that if they report it as natural, then no more $$$. So they keep reporting that there may be a problem. They then discover that the scarier they make it sound, the more $$$ rolls there way. Problem = $$$. No problem = no $$$. As long as scientifically challenged politicians are involved, the cause will be funded. Conservative estimates on the job's Global Warming Farce creates is well above 10,000. If Global Warming is ever deemed natural, then most are unemployed.

NOTE: Not all scientist are on the take. Several have bravely come out in opposition of this theory. Why would they, when Al Gore TV (the Weather Channel) big wigs say that if you disagree with their theory, you should be excommunicated from the church of Al Gore's Global Warmingism, and have your meteorology credentials revoked. Fortunately, our Constitution guarantees that there is a separation of church and idiots.

There is no consensus. Scientist usually do not have a “consensus” because most problems are complex, as this one, and even the ones that think Al Gore is an idiot, do not agree why. He is an idiot on so many levels. The politician's may have had a consensus, but it was not based on science.

To be continued.