(And now, for the second posting of it. This bloody "service" has just eatten another of my postings, and I'm seriously sick and tired of it. The one good thing about AOL's blogs is I never once had this problem. Now with Blogspit (yes, I meant to type that) this is now number eight. EIGHT. Blogspit take note: That's seven times too many. If you are, perchance, attempting to persuade me to move elsewhere, it's working.)
The link: http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113-text.html
If you're been reading this blog for a while (and I know what some have and I thank you warmly for that,) you'll know that before it became a mostly political blog it also covered the Global Warming situation.
There can be no doubt that we are in the midst of climate change. Of that, this is no doubt whatsoever. The governing consensus is that the Earth is in a period of global warming, although there is a theory that says we're in a period leading up to a new ice age. I'll be the first to admit right now that any theory arrived at logically and scientifically possesses its own validity, however, there are a number of people who are now viewing global warming as a de facto religion. It most certainly is nothing of the sort. Global Warming is a theory ... at best. It predicts wild swings of temperature. Some years it will be colder and in others it will be hotter. The overall trend, however, will be warming. To be frank, it is a theory that also has a great deal of contradictory evidence. Some of this evidence in fact refutes global warming entirely.
So what is going on? Well, let's go with the governing consensus, that the Earth is in a period of global warming. The overwhelming bulk of evidence supports this reading of the facts, although as stated there is contradictory evidence about this, too.
So, let's say that the Earth is in a period of global warming. If we were to accept this as a fact, the next logical question would be why exactly is the Earth warming? This, however, is where the consensus breaks down completely.
There are a great many people out there on both sides of this debate that consider themselves to be "scientists." However, for one to be a scientist, one must follow the scientific principle*, which is also called the scientific method*.
One of these tenets is that you do not go into a reading of the data with a preconceived notion of where it will lead. In other words, you follow the data and the evidence where it leads you. You do not attempt to 'fudge' the data to make things come out in your favour. You do not emphasis certain data and de-emphasis other contradictory data. To be a real or serious scientist is to follow the data, not attempt to lead it.
Far too many people on both sides of the global warming debate are forgetting this point, however. They read the data with the goal of proving or disproving their already established conclusion. A serious scientist won't even have a conclusion at this point.
FACT: The Earth is warming.
CONCLUSION: Mankind is solely culpable (at fault.)
Now that is a leap of illogic. The fact is that we are in a time of global climate change. If we were to accept as fact that the Earth is in a period of global warming, we can accept the "fact" as a bona fide fact. Therefore; the Earth is warming. The conclusion, however, is in no way supported by the facts.
PROBLEM #1: Mercury is warming. This can be proven (again, read my older postings or Google this and you will find it.) However, since Mercury is so close to the Sun, I'm not sure this is valid. The Sun could burp and poor little Mercury would get fried. ::burp:: ::WHOOSH!:: "Sorry. I didn't mean to fricassee you again." (Just imagine what would happen if the Sun were to sneeze.)
PROBLEM #2: Venus is warming. Again, this can be proven by NASA and the folks at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
PROBLEM #3: Mars is warming. Again, this too can be proven by NASA and the folks at JPL.
PROBLEM #4: Jupiter is warming at the equator. Same sources.
PROBLEM #5: Europa is warming. Same sources. Although, to be brutally honest, some of this probably is due to the gravitiational and tidal forces being exerted on this moon.
There are no cars on any of these bodies. No coal-fired power plants, either. Yet the people that view global warming as a type of religion ignore this. This really is an 'inconvenient truth,' isn't it, Mr Gore? No farming, therefore no cattle.
"Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions." (emphasis mine)
I've been pointing this out for years. So has George Noory (yes, of Coast to Coast AM). So has Dr. Peter Ward and many many others. And yet, we've all be called ... well. Never mind what we've been called. But it ain't pretty.
Here's what Mr Noory and Dr Ward say, and to follow the evidence where it leads, I also believe: The Earth follows natural cycles. Yet this article as well will be ignored by those with an agenda.
The Sun also follows its own natural cycles. In fact, every one of those five problems I highlighted earlier can be solved by increasing the output from the Sun. This would warm all of these bodies and on Earth would increase the amount of methane and sulfur dioxide in the air.
How? By melting permafrost from rising temperatures and from releasing methane and sulfur dioxide trapped on the ocean floor by a similar method. In fact, there is evidence in the fossil record that supports an impending mass extinction**.
But for those that view global warming as a de facto religion, this really is an 'inconvenient truth,' and will, in sad fact, be discarded. However, that is not what a serious scientist does. A serious scientist would look at this contradictory evidence and would be forced to consider it on its own merits, not by how it fits in with an already established conclusion.
One of the few concrete facts we have is that we are in the midst of global climate change. However, based on the fact that five other bodies in this solar system (four planets and one moon) are also warming, can we really believe that mankind is solely to blame?
Not if we are scientists and follow the evidence where it leads us.
* - Scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method
** - link for impending mass extinction: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024083644.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment