In a song Johnny Cash asked the question, "What is truth?" One thing I am sure of, it is the scientist benefits from what he claims to be reporting, we need to have someone check!

So how does the scientist benefit? Grants for research. Publishing papers that draw fame and attention to the scientist. Honors that bring promotion and pay raises in academia.

When I was in grade school I learned that science was to be about truth, not popularity. Two plus two are four, no matter how many liberals or conservatives say it isn't or how many scientific papers say otherwise. And papers no longer get the independent peer review they once got. The scientific community has become so much like the Borg Collective with individuals not having independent thoughts that any paper that is blessed by those in power is not even questioned. The scientific community has become like the Catholic Church of Luther's day with no questioning allowed. Although I disagree with some points in both Luther's ninety nine theses and Ben Stine's "No Intelligence Allowed", I am sure that at least Ben would give me the right to independently review the movie and comment. I am also convinced that the character of both men would cause either of them to recant any position that was proven to be wrong. This is how it should be in the scientific community. But if you question global warming or if you indicate there may be some truth in intelligent design, the scientific community will step on you with greater force than the Catholic Church attacked Luther. It is a holy war to stamp out the dissidents. But it has been those very dissidents that forged ahead science in the past. It was the ones who said the earth was not flat (the accepted religious and scientific view of the day) who pushed ahead. It was those who thought the atom was made up of smaller particles and could be split (contrary to the accepted view of the atom being un-splittable) who forged ahead there. Most advances have been impeded by the current establishment!

Over the last several weeks I have seen dozens of programs on future disasters like global warming, massive earthquakes, volcano eruptions, asteroids, massive storms, tsunamis, mud slides, and the like. And all of those programs featured scientists who predicted the doom. I wonder how much each of them was paid for their appearance. I wonder how much that money clouded their judgment and how it much consideration was given to making it more salable, that is sensational. Another way of saying that is to ask, "How far did it stray from truth?"

Last night I encountered another program, "The Big Chill, the mini-Ice Age." This ice age, a significant change in climate occurred from about 1350 to 1850. It caused famine, disease, wars, and political upheaval. It is believed to have figured in the defeats of Napoleon in Russia and the Spanish Armada in the English Channel. And the conclusion was this, "Could this happen again?" Of course, the scientists say, "possibly." Heck, nearly anything is possible but it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a man to tell the truth when coloring it brings him money. If he says, "no", there will be no grant money to study it.

I have no doubt the little ice age occurred. There is too much evidence that it did to ignore it. But HOW it happened is up for grabs. And now there is a market for the global cooling crowd and a possible stream of money from government to study it and determine if we are going into an ice age! There is gold in them thar glaciers!

Let's look at the inconsistencies, not including the one that is obvious about all of this, if the Hollywood ilk, the environazis and the Gore Party Politicos believed there was global warming they would shut down their oversized air conditioned homes, fly commercial or take a train, and live like they want he rest of us to live. These people don't believe in global warming. They talk a talk but they don't walk the walk. In the church we call them hypocrites.

The first inconsistency is the noted causes of global warming and the mini ice age. Listen to the above rabble and you will learn that global warming is caused by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who have over the last 80 years encouraged us to use more fossil fuel. The first lie is obvious. Neither Bush nor Cheney could have had anything to do with that up till the last twenty or so years so the eighty is a lie. And if they are willing to tell one lie, will they tell another and another?

Secondly, the proof of global warming is based on the weather observations over the years. Two factors here blow that one away totally but because there is money in global warming these are not mentioned by the scientific community that knows the contrary evidence exists. They just burry their head in the sand with their collective fannies in the air. First, the method of reading the old alcohol and mercury thermometers guaranteed a reading of .49 degrees low. Before digitals the thermometer was read to the degree at or below the mercury or alcohol. This meant that a reading of 32.9 got recorded as 32, just the same as 32.0. Ask a mathematician about this, just don't tell him it was about global warming and he will tell you the average will be .49 degrees off. Just the shift to digital thermometers caused a .49 increase! This would have happened over a twenty or so year period as digitals replaced the older thermometers. In addition, fifty years ago many of the weather stations were properly sited. They had a 100 meter ring of low vegetation around them. They were away from heat sources. They were shielded properly from the sun. But over the years this has eroded. Asphalt has been laid near them and in some cases right under them. Buildings were built near them and in some cases they have been moved to the top of the building! Some are sitting within ten feet of an air conditioning unit. Some have been painted colors that increase temperature. It is almost as if someone had said, "Let's prove the earth is getting warmer. Let's compromise the weather reporting stations to make them give high readings." One station here in the York area, the one at the Thomasville Airport is continually maligned by the weather reporters that it always has a lower temperature than the other stations. I never realized till a few weeks ago. The station is almost perfectly sited while others would be in the plus two to plus 5 categories. We have one station in the area that is properly sited and I am not sure it is one of the official ones that is used for the climate studies. If it is, the area is reported high on four of five stations. If not, it is reported two or more degrees high on four of four.

There is an organization that is auditing these stations. With several hundred of them surveyed one quarter of them have been found to be improper enough to read two to five degrees high! If one quarter of the stations read two degrees high and all the others read perfect, the result is an average that is .5 degrees high. In addition another half of them will read just about 2 degrees high. That makes a full degree of offset. Some of the others will contribute a degree but with the number of them being in the ten percent range the offset is about .1 degree.

If I add the reading error of .5 degrees and the offset from the stations of 2.6 degrees, I find that the readings are 3.1 degrees high. Since they are about .9 degrees Fahrenheit higher according to the global warming gurus, this means the real temperature is 2.2 degrees lower. According to the mini ice age group it only took a four degree drop to create the mini-ice age! We are over half way there.

Thirdly the global warming guru's say it is caused by carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuel. The mini ice age gurus say it was caused sulfur dioxide belched out by volcano eruptions. They mention that the volcanoes also belched out water vapor and, you will not believe it, carbon dioxide! If they produced carbon dioxide and it is the cause of global warming, why did it get colder rather than warmer? In our business we have vendor meets when a site has problems and we get finger pointing on what is wrong. We joke that we get all the liars in the same room and let them sort it out. Maybe it is time to get all the liars about global warming in the same room and let them sort it out. If someone wants to help set this up, I will moderate!

Fourth, we have for the last fifty years been reducing the sulfur dioxide output of power plants. If I believe the mini-ice age gurus we have been creating global warming by reducing this pollutant! If we allowed the power plants to produce both sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide, maybe they would offset! Taking one out of the mix is a problem.

Finally the ice age people are claiming that the global warming, the melting of the ice cap, the warm flow from the south are all coming together to produce the next ice age. Please understand, the last one was caused by sulfur dioxide producing sulfuric acid clouds. This one is caused by man polluting. Why wasn't it caused by Mt. St. Helens and the other volcanoes?" I don't know and they don't know. And they just don't care as long as the money comes in.

With the presidential race so close, and the policy platforms of the candidates so well advertised on the candidate's websites, the only wild card in the debates will be personal appeal and presidential demeanor. Furthermore, the candidate's personas are so well known, that this debate is an opportunity for each candidate to improve his persona in front of the national audience.

Barack Obama is known for providing long-winded, sophisticated analyses of foreign policy and national security issues so Obama will likely try to present a more decisive persona more fitting of a president of the United States, rather than befitting a political science professor. John McCain on the other hand, known for providing testy, feisty responses particularly when irritated, will try to present a more thoughtful, considered persona. Both will try to moderate the aspect of their delivery that is most negative. This over-riding element in the debates will contribute to a rather tepid, lukewarm debate without much promise for new insights about the candidates.

The candidates will address issues that have already been debated in public for months: the Iraq War, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, a China policy, a policy on Russia, global warming, international terrorism, our relations with Europe, and international trade. None of those issues offers a fertile ground for surprising policy initiatives. John McCain is the most interventionist and favored the troop surge in Iraq. Barack Obama voted against the Iraq War, but supported intervention in Afghanistan. The most controversial topic is how to handle nuclear proliferation and what to do about Iran: should the U.S. continue to work through the United Nations or should the U.S. take unilateral action against the Iranian regime.

Accordingly, within what promises to be a very uninspiring debate, the candidates will focus on form and not substance. Viewers will be left with a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidates based on their delivery and personality rather than on the substance of the issues debated. Absent the candidate's views on Iran, there is likely to be little new in the way of policy recommendations. The debate will be an acting rehearsal rather than a debate on policy, and that promises to be a dull debate.

When WWII was raging the automotive industry was given an ultimatum- convert all of your production to tanks or be closed down, most of them chose the 1st.  If we can do that again except with wind turbines instead of tanks we can  have a big part of our energy converted to wind instead of oil, that would be a tremendous leap. 

Once that is done we can give another ultimatum, again to the automative industry.  this time it would be change your production to ethanol or get shut down.  of course we would need ethanol to fuel these cars so we could instead of importing our spare corn we can put the spare corn to ethanol companies and let them go crazy.   Of course many gas cars will still be in circulation so we can use the gas we saved from the windmills to ween the country of oil in cars. 

The last major use of oil is in making plastics and synthetic fibers.  This will be hard to get rid of since this industry is gaining momentum.  To combat regular plastics we can use alternatives you already see on the market to make smaller items like cups, and we can just inflate that industry.  Many alternatives to synthetic fibers are already avalable so we can also give money and advertisment to that industry.

Of course there are many uses for oil that aren't mentioned here so to provide for those we can either drill for oild in Alaska or just continue to buy that bit from the middle east.  All in all, if we follow this plan more or less, our country's dependance on oil will be much reduced, putting us in a much better situation all around. 

The green house effect is another name for the global warming. From what I understand, and that is really a very small amount from everything that I have read, seen and watched on TV, the Green house effect is the increase on the Earth of our temperatures due to things like C02, nitrous oxide, and methane. These gases get trapped by the energy of the sun which causes the temperatures to rise. Now, I may not be totally aware of what all of those gases are, but I can say that I have seen the temperatures become warmer especially in the winer months over the last few years. So is there really a Green house effect?

Some people say that every few hundreds of years the earth goes through these kinds of changes and that everything will go back to normal. So my question is....who do we believe. Or better yet, what do we believe?

I have recently read an article that stated the insurance companies will possibly changing their policies to state that the natural disaster was avoidable because it is an effect of global warming. Gee, the insurance companies are look to find another way to “mess” us over with our coverage. Now isn't that surprising to everyone here? I know it was to me.

This is what Nobel Laureate awardees for Physics David Gross proved to the thousand of students and faculty of the University of the Philippines as he spoke in UP Film Centre as part of his visit in the Philippines for Bridges - Dialogues Towards a Culture of Peace, a series of discussion initiated and facilitated by Vienna-based International Peace Foundation under the mutual patronage of 21 Nobel Peace Prize Laureates.

“Science can and must help,” said Gross addressing the problems of nuclear weapons, overpopulation, global energy consumption, the declining health of the planet and the impact of global warming, which in one way or another is also caused by scientific and technological advancements. “But more than science is needed.”

Bridges started in Thailand in November 2003 with the 250 events. The successful initial series lead to invitations from other ASEAN countries. Last year, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo officially launched Bridges in the Philippines, with approximately 50 events to be held from November 2007 to April 2008 simultaneously in the Philippines and Thailand. Geared towards the advancement of peace, freedom and security in the ASEAN region through the involvement of the youth, Bridges capitalize on the role of science, technology and education as tools for this goal. The participation of the Nobel Laureates is expected to forge alliances with local universities and institutions, expected to yield more collaborations and common research programs. In the country, Bridges is chaired by Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala, Chairman and CEO of Ayala Corporation and Washington SyCip, Founding chairman of SGV Group and Asian Institute of Management.

Professor Gross is one among the 7 Nobel Laureates who are invited to come to the Philippines to discuss about “the coming revolution of fundamental physics”. The 66-year old Director of Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics of the University of California, is awarded the Nobel Laureate for Physics in 2004 with his discovery of asymptotic freedom along with Frank Wilczek and David Politzer. According to his theory, the closer quarks are to each other, the less the strong interaction between them; when quarks are in extreme proximity, the nuclear force between them is so weak that they behave almost as free particles.

In his speech, Professor Gross gave predictions of what the world will become after 100 t0 1000 years. He said that from 50-100 years, most questions will be answered but more will emerged, as we are on our way towards a sustainable economics and social arrangement and a world government. Gross believes that having seperate government systems in every part of the globe will not persist and internationalism is the way to put the world in better order. He argued that basic science is truly an international endeavour and internationalism is a model of cooperation, collaboration and competition.

Meanwhile, in a thousand years, Gross said that there will be an increase in the life span as science will discover more ways to prolong human's existence in this world, though this will have a profound impact on the society, environment and culture, since also means an increase in population. Gross put a very strong emphasis on the problem of pollution across the globe and its grave threat on the future of mankind, if we still have a future to look forward to because pollution's ultimate damge will be the extinction of mankind. Extreme heat, climate change, flooding and famine are just some of the effects of pollution, phenomena that are already being felt all over the world. Overconsumption, he said is the main cause of pollution and suggests that the developed countries should think about stopping consumption.

“We must build an economic system and political system that is not dependent on unlimited consumption and growth.”

In addition to the increase in life span, Gross also predicted that new biological species will arise and that nature will reveal more of its secrets.

“Science will be more important in the tomorrow's world. It will help us increase the good and avoid the bad.”

Bridges will also feature Nobel Laureates in Economics, Peace, Physics, Chemistry, Medicine and the former World Bank President James Wolfensohn. Bridge's forums are open to public. For more information on their schedule, visit their website.

Not so latest news is the hike in fuel price. As a result of this people are protesting in India, Malaysia, Spain and the list might get longer. The governments in these countries fear tumbling any time. The poor are forced to choose between lunch and dinner and the rich are painfully settling for more fuel efficient and hybrid cars. Life has become difficult.

But if there are people celebrating the hike in fuel prices then they are the environmental activists. The traffic levels on the US roads are dropping; people all over the globe are opting for public transportation and car pooling. SUVs are being replaced with hybrid cars. Two wheelers are getting popular. Cycles might soon make a comeback.

Not many may appreciate a hike in fuel price but the environment surely stands to gain. Did you know, city traffic along with buildings and manufacturers emits 70 per cent of world's greenhouse gases? This figure should come down with decreasing traffic movement all over the globe thereby reducing global warming.

I guess nature patiently waits for us to correct our mistakes but sadly, it realizes that we humans always learn the hard way.

There are many topics to consider when viewing global warming. The most apparent of these is temperature and the causes of its fluctuation. As presented in An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore claims that the temperature has accelerated over the past 50 years. While this sounds as if it is backed up by scientific evidence, it is actually not. In the vast geological record of this planet, average temperatures have risen, and fallen, many dozens of times. It is hardly scientific to dismiss as a possible cause whatever produced the first multitude of global warming episodes. That, however, is precisely what is being done in this current propaganda campaign because obviously those aforementioned episodes occurred long before the industrial age of man. Gore makes the claim in his film that the current warming period is far more dramatic as compared to the previous phases Earth has undergone. In fact, the average temperature over the past 30 years has risen a whopping 0.51°C (2007 IPCC Climate Report, Graph 9). More specifically, the temperature has stabilized and has never surpassed the temperatures of 1998, indicating a drop-off in average temperature since that year (IPCC 4th Assessment Report, 4-5). In October of 2007, Dr. Don Easterbrook gave a presentation at a geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He demonstrated that temperature trends for the past 15,000 years included 10 swings which were “at least 20 times greater than the warming in the past century” (Dr. Easterbrook 4)

In his film, Al Gore takes a broad look at graphs of CO2 and temperature measurements, assuming that CO2 increased before temperature. The proposed theory of a rise in carbon emissions causing a rise in temperature has been disproven. As Steven Hayward puts the graphs together in his documentary, the viewer notices that temperature influx preceded a rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Another disputed topic is that of glacial and ice cap melting across the globe. Although it is true that the Arctic's overall ice mass has decreased over the last century, there is a different story in the Antarctic. According to a study by Ohio State University headed by David Bromwich, temperatures over much of Antarctica have decreased since the onset of the 20th century. The only area in which climate has increased is in the Antarctic Peninsula which is farther north than the rest of the continent (David Bromwich 3). The overall ice mass of Antarctica is actually increasing (D. J. Wingham 8). In the Arctic, it has been suggested that storms and the loss of ice have caused a decline in the polar bear populations. This is completely false. Of the 13 polar bear populations in Canada, 11 are increasing (Iain Murray, Gorey Truths 2). In the northern hemisphere, there are claims that Greenland's ice mass could break off and seriously damage the currents, namely the Gulf Stream (Al Gore, AIT). The Greenland Ice Sheet “sits in a bowl-like depression surrounded by mountains that restrict glacial outflow to the sea” (Marlo Lewis, Jr. 3). Therefore, it is impossible for this ice sheet to ever make its way into the Atlantic. In addition to this, the Gulf Stream is incapable of ever stopping regardless of any sized mass of ice melting such as Greenland (Mr. Justice Burton 86).

Nowhere is the weakness of the alarmist case more evident than in their linking of storm intensity and global temperature rise. Barack Obama has summed it up thusly: “All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it's here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.” This quote certainly represents a kind of hot air but it is one caused by political ambition, not CO2. As a matter of fact, several scientists who specialize in hurricane studies resigned from the IPCC panel because the UN report insisted on making a connection between global warming and violent weather that was not based on actually research (Chris Landsea 1-3). Nevertheless, the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was too good an opportunity to warn of the dire new era of monster storms. Inconveniently, the seasons that followed, in 2006 and 2007, were among the quietest hurricane seasons in the last 50 years (William M. Gray, 2006-2007 Tropical Reports). The frequency of tornadoes has not increased either. “If we consider the tornadoes that have been detectable for many decades (F-3 or greater), there is actually a downward trend since 1950” (Marlo Lewis, Jr. 3). Now the connection between violent storms and global warming is not often heard.

There are many other facts which Gore and the Greens will find unfortunate. Sea levels will rise 40 centimeters over the next century, not 7 meters (Iain Murray Gorey Truths 2). The Kyoto treaty is essentially meaningless because it never included India and China (China has now exceeded the CO2 emissions of the United States.) The European Union was praised for adopting Kyoto, but it has never met its emissions goals (Chris Horner 17-18). Gore and his allies want to censor any further discussion of this matter. Maintaining silence is the best argument if one's argument is weak. Anyone who thinks a minimal temperature rise of .17°C/decade poses a threat equivalent to nuclear war, global poverty, or Islamic fascism, should find a cool place in the shade to sit down, chill out, and get a grip.

 

What are greenhouse gases?

Greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. These greenhouse gases allow the short-wavelength sunlight to go through, but strongly absorb the infrared radiation. The trapping of the long wavelength radiation leads to a higher temperature, a phenomenon called greenhouse effect. The major atmospheric constituents, nitrogen and oxygen, are not greenhouse gases. Studies show that carbon dioxide accounts for 75 percent of all greenhouse gases.

In the early 20th century, researchers recognized that major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, caused the earth's temperature to be higher than it would have been without the greenhouse gases.

Burning fossil fuels contributes to the increase of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Studies have been conducted on the ice cores from Antarctica. The data show that before industrial emissions started, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppm). Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, greenhouse gas concentrations have increased significantly. The levels of CO2 has increased by about 100 ppm (i.e., from 280 ppm to 380 ppm).

Research Data from the Climate Research Unit in UK indicate that atmospheric temperature has increased significantly since 1910. Data from US National Climatic Data Center also indicate a steady increasing trend for the mean temperature in the northern hemisphere.

These are evidences of global warming!

Potential consequences of global warming are disastrous, including loss of snow cover, sea level rise, change in weather patterns, extinction of certain species, etc.

How Does Greenhouse Gases Warm Up the Earth?

When sunlight strikes the surface of the Earth, some of it is reflected back into space in the form of heat. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide traps the heat in the Earth's atmosphere. Greenhouse gases regulate the Earth's heat so the Earth doesn't become too cold, but too much greenhouse gases could create problems for organisms on Earth.

The Purpose of My Research Project

The purpose of my research project is to find out if the presence of carbon dioxide can delay the heat loss from sandy soil or not. To do that, I will create two micro-systems with sand (two plastic bottles with sand), one with carbon dioxide, and the other without carbon dioxide. I will heat the two systems to a certain temperature, and measure the heat losses in the two systems simultaneously. The results of my experiment will be useful to understand the greenhouse gas effect, and could be used as evidence that increased carbon dioxide concentrations could cause global warming!

My Hypothesis

Based on my research, carbon dioxide can absorb the infrared radiation, thus slow down the process of heat loss from the soil. Therefore, my hypothesis is: the decrease of temperature in the sand containerized in the bottle with carbon dioxide will be significantly slower than that in the bottle without carbon dioxide.

But where is the truth in this movement? Climate change experts have claimed many different times at which we will pass the point of no return. Arbitrary timelines have been set by inaccurate models of what couldhappen in the future. Bans on many common applications have been enforced with more on the way. Oil drilling is prohibited and new power plants are blocked from being built, all the while ethanol and other alternative energy sources are being pushed into use despite their overall lack of value.

Global warming is accepted today as inevitable and manmade. We will, without doubt, destroy this planet if we don't change our ways. But where is the evidence? Across America we see record low temperatures, we see ice expanding in the Arctic and global sea levels are dropping. The Earth's temperature has risen in a manner consistent with nature warming due to solar cycles, but not in a way indicating that man is responsible. No climate model has yet been produced that accurately describes the past, let alone the future.

The evidence is growing daily that the global warming movement is a farce. Astronomers have been able to confirm that a new solar cycle is responsible for temperature changes, and scientists have proven that cow flatulence is responsible for more methane emissions than all of mankind combined.

So why is the movement still persisting? The media have hyped it up, that's why. In today's “If it bleeds, it leads” media mentality, global warming is a hot topic that allows media to stir up the public and raise their own ratings. The media is backed by activist politicians who want to bend the global warming doctrines into policy directives that will advance their own political agendas. Al Gore and his leftward band of liberals have stirred up such a commotion that they can use global warming to block such important directives as energy policy.

American energy policy has been a major target of the global warming crowd. Drilling for oil is forbidden because we will destroy an already fragile environment and we can't risk raising our carbon footprint. We can't build nuclear plants to help alleviate energy concerns because they are harmful and could raise the temperature of the earth. It seems every energy policy that might help America out of its current oil problem can somehow be blocked by leftists preaching global warming.

American consumers will also feel the sting of global warming politicians. Those of us who drive SUVs are branded as anti-environment because, according to these politicians, our carbon footprint is too large. Meanwhile, of course, the private jets of these same politicians don't harm the environment. Why? Because they say so, of course.

The crown jewel of environmentalism is ethanol. It is the fuel of the future; made of corn, its emissions are lower and it is much, much cheaper than gas. At least, that's what they want you to think. The truth of the matter is that ethanol is more expensive than gas, gets lower gas mileage, and puts a hurt on many more people than it could ever help. The price of corn has skyrocketed because of the government's mandate to produce ethanol, most of which is unused. This, in turn, forces the prices of other crops up, which in turn forces all food prices up. This increase can be felt all across America as prices rise at stores and restaurants.

The global warming movement has only served to hurt America and its hardworking citizens. We need to break the control the media has over this farce and show the citizens of America that we're not hurting the planet; we're hurting ourselves.