George stood with honor as the fellow scientist tore down and destroyed the research he had spent years working on. In dismay he watched them attack the factual evidence that he had worked so hard to obtain, and was awed at the length they were willing to go to in order to save their own skins. As the last volley of insults finished, the councilmen asked for both the research and the researcher to be marked as corrupted. This would have all been avoided if he had listened to the counsel’s email demanding him to edit his research in order to follow the common trend of global warming, but because he had honor, his name was now slandered forever.
The debate of global warming has gripped the world today, causing turmoil in the general public as they attempt to pull reality from smeared truth. Many scientists have their entire career riding on the topic of global warming, and many others simply have their paychecks tied in to this trillion dollar industry. With so much at stake, all of the original assumptions about global warming have been kept primarily the same. Claims of Global Warming have created a mass [panic among the people of earth causing us to do, just about anything in order to get rid of this ‘threat’. However, in light of recent scientific evidence, death by global warming is most likely nothing but a hoax. Anthropogenic warming, or global warming caused by human, is not as drastic as many scholars have made it seem. I have outlined why in the points, the earth is always in motion, the data and graphs prove nothing, and the corruption of data.
The earth started moving on day one, and just never stopped. There are millions of different weather cycles caused by this constant motion. The Serbian geophysicist Milankovoch identified just three cycles that happen every 22,000; 41,000 and 100,000 years respectively as we travel around the sun (Bloom). We also travel in circles around our galaxy, because just as we revolve around the sun, the sun revolves around the black whole that gives our galaxy a center (Bloom). So obviously as we are flung in this never-ending loop through the most vast and unpredictable space know to man we are subject to things from debris constantly attacking our atmosphere, and cosmic rays that could react with the sun consequently killing us all. To say that Global warming is cause by something so insignificant and small as humans, is to say that a pack of angry amoeba ate your homework.
For years there has been testing done by multiple groups attempting to find out the effects of putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It is a widely accepted fact that the “doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (it turns out that one gets the same value for a doubling regardless of what value one starts from) would perturb the energy balance of Earth about 2 percent, and this would produce about 2 degrees Fahrenheit warming in the absence of feedbacks” (Lindzen). So for the most part the models all agree that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the overall temperature of the earth by approximately two degrees, however even with the CO2 data, the ‘actual temperature of the earth was not raised by more that one one-hundredth of a degree. It has been shown that the extra heat stored in the extra CO2 makes clouds form differently. When the clouds form differently in the manner caused, they dispel all of the extra heat nullifying the effects completely. This was overlooked however in earlier and corrupt models, and was given a positive attribute, meaning that the scientist used this as an argument for their case when it is in all rights an argument against their case.
Unfortunately, like all things in this world, even the scientists in charge of global warming have bent into corruption. Discrediting other scientist for having data that was obtained legitimately is the worst that these men have done. There were emails sent to fellow members of these committees that read “Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4 [Fourth IPCC Assessment Reportl? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment -- minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise” (Hiserodt). So they were trying to cover something up within one of the reports huh, well what were they covering? Could it have been the fact that “an audit of 860 stations, 89 percent failed to meet the Service's sitting requirements that instrumentation must be 30 meters from any artificial heating/radiating or reflecting heat source” (Hiserodt). Or maybe, it was that June of 2009 was recorded as the second warmest June for over a hundred years according to the IPCC”s data, and the middle temperature for all data taken since the beginning of satellite recorded temperatures approximately 33 years ago (Hiserodt). Regardless of what they were attempting to cover, we know for a fact that the IPCC was only accepting partial data from all sources, and that they were editing sources on file making claims about how there was noise in some reading, and about how we can throw out a lot of other data because we know global warming is right so that data is corrupt.
Counter: CO2 models
Conclusion
The debate of global warming has gripped the world today, causing turmoil in the general public as they attempt to pull reality from smeared truth. Many scientists have their entire career riding on the topic of global warming, and many others simply have their paychecks tied in to this trillion dollar industry. With so much at stake, all of the original assumptions about global warming have been kept primarily the same. Claims of Global Warming have created a mass [panic among the people of earth causing us to do, just about anything in order to get rid of this ‘threat’. However, in light of recent scientific evidence, death by global warming is most likely nothing but a hoax. Anthropogenic warming, or global warming caused by human, is not as drastic as many scholars have made it seem. I have outlined why in the points, the earth is always in motion, the data and graphs prove nothing, and the corruption of data.
The earth started moving on day one, and just never stopped. There are millions of different weather cycles caused by this constant motion. The Serbian geophysicist Milankovoch identified just three cycles that happen every 22,000; 41,000 and 100,000 years respectively as we travel around the sun (Bloom). We also travel in circles around our galaxy, because just as we revolve around the sun, the sun revolves around the black whole that gives our galaxy a center (Bloom). So obviously as we are flung in this never-ending loop through the most vast and unpredictable space know to man we are subject to things from debris constantly attacking our atmosphere, and cosmic rays that could react with the sun consequently killing us all. To say that Global warming is cause by something so insignificant and small as humans, is to say that a pack of angry amoeba ate your homework.
For years there has been testing done by multiple groups attempting to find out the effects of putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It is a widely accepted fact that the “doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (it turns out that one gets the same value for a doubling regardless of what value one starts from) would perturb the energy balance of Earth about 2 percent, and this would produce about 2 degrees Fahrenheit warming in the absence of feedbacks” (Lindzen). So for the most part the models all agree that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the overall temperature of the earth by approximately two degrees, however even with the CO2 data, the ‘actual temperature of the earth was not raised by more that one one-hundredth of a degree. It has been shown that the extra heat stored in the extra CO2 makes clouds form differently. When the clouds form differently in the manner caused, they dispel all of the extra heat nullifying the effects completely. This was overlooked however in earlier and corrupt models, and was given a positive attribute, meaning that the scientist used this as an argument for their case when it is in all rights an argument against their case.
Unfortunately, like all things in this world, even the scientists in charge of global warming have bent into corruption. Discrediting other scientist for having data that was obtained legitimately is the worst that these men have done. There were emails sent to fellow members of these committees that read “Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4 [Fourth IPCC Assessment Reportl? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment -- minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise” (Hiserodt). So they were trying to cover something up within one of the reports huh, well what were they covering? Could it have been the fact that “an audit of 860 stations, 89 percent failed to meet the Service's sitting requirements that instrumentation must be 30 meters from any artificial heating/radiating or reflecting heat source” (Hiserodt). Or maybe, it was that June of 2009 was recorded as the second warmest June for over a hundred years according to the IPCC”s data, and the middle temperature for all data taken since the beginning of satellite recorded temperatures approximately 33 years ago (Hiserodt). Regardless of what they were attempting to cover, we know for a fact that the IPCC was only accepting partial data from all sources, and that they were editing sources on file making claims about how there was noise in some reading, and about how we can throw out a lot of other data because we know global warming is right so that data is corrupt.
Counter: CO2 models
Conclusion
