finn is a very intelligent slave. he runs a family business and is respected in his community. So, one day when we were speaking about cars and I said I was worried about owning a big car not just because I thought the gas guzzling Rendezvous We own selfishly promotes a war in Iraq I deeply disagree with but also because owning it added to the problems of the environment and global warming.
With a snort, he dramatically huffed there was no such thing, that it was just a lot of posturing and political rhetoric and that Gore is a silly alarmist that has no idea what he's talking about and is an embarrassment to the TRUE scientific community. I thought to Myself, here is a perfectly intelligent man following the lead of conservative middle America right into the brink of disaster for future generations and he belonged to ME. Even more so, he is firmly entrenched in a leather lifestyle which his conservative friends would promptly do away with at the drop of a dime or change of The Bill of Rights if they could.
finn and I are on opposite sides of the fence politically and yes he's a BUSH man if you can believe there are any left. So, I thought about what I could do and came up with the idea of asking him to put his thoughts to paper and convince me that the people talking about Global Warming were really just alarmists and there was no danger to humankind in the way we use our Earth. I think people that know that we have a responsibility to correct some wrongs incorrectly assume that everyone knows it's true now and that we need to get over that and move on to action. This is a mistaken and dangerous assumption as you can see in the result of my slave’s assignment. What follows is that paper.... please feel free to comment... I'm betting most of you know what I thought about it but I'll weigh in later. I'm still thinking on it.
Just a note: finn never saw An Inconvenient Truth and yet he cites the movie through others comments so I have commanded that he watch it mainly because I believe if you are going to build a case against something you have to know about it to disagree with it.
Here you go.... I only ask that if you decide to read it, read it to the end.
IT’S HOT IN HERE
by finn[ky]
My Mistress always amuses me with the diversity of topics She chooses to discuss with Her property. Some of the topics involve the drama of the hour and some really impact society. It’s those subjects that this boy is most careful of because even if the subject doesn’t perk my curiosity my Mistress has the ability to put it on my radar and to test (otherwise known as “trap”) Her boy.
When this boy thinks about his Owner and global warming his idea usually involves the globes of a boy’s ass that are being “warmed” by his Mistress for some infraction or just because it pleases Her. But on this day Mistress Kytherea was actually discussing the type of global warming most vanilla folks are familiar with.She had gone to see the movie The Inconvenient Truth the Al Gore thriller in which he is running around telling everyone that will listen to him that the sky is falling and before long if we cannot patch the atmosphere we will all look like we have been on the bar-b-que pit for two days too long. Yes the same Al Gore who had the presidential election stolen from him by someone named chad.
So being a pretty conservative person from the heartland of America and homophobic (that was for my Mistress) this one does not subscribe to his jibberish. Well for those that know my Mistress you probably know what came next. “REALLY?” She said. And so it has come to pass that a boy has been given the opportunity to research and prove his point… to all that will listen. The only difference between Al and this boy is that if my Mistress is not pleased with my work there will be a catastrophic event and it won’t take years to “feel” the effect.
This may be the appropriate time to mention that finn[Ky] did not watch the movie or read the accompanying book lest he become influenced and succumb to the dramatics that cinematography can produce. So when this one refers to the movie he makes the comments based on what he has learned through research on what the content of the movie is.
Oh this just in … 36 minutes ago out of … Houston..NASA scientists say that if greenhouse gas isn’t cut back the temperature along the entire Eastern seaboard could look for summer temperatures to rise as much as 10 degrees by 2080….
this boy is grateful that his Mistress does not force him to be a doormat of a slave and he is allowed some freedom to question things, because he wonders in this case…. What about the winter temperatures? a boy personally thinks the New York winters could use some warming up. Using the summer example perhaps is more sensational news. So surely that makes it ok.
The article by Armando Duke goes on to say that NASA scientists used a computer model that analyzed nearly 30 years of temperature and precipitation data combined with computer model simulations that considered soil, atmospheric, and oceanic conditions- and projected changes in greenhouse gases.
So in other words….NASA scientists used a model ( which according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition is .. a description or analogy used to help visualize something (as an atom) that cannot be directly observed). Why did they have to use a model? What is so hard about looking at 30 years of temperature and precipitation data? Shouldn’t that data be black on white? Perhaps its so then if the result doesn’t come out the way they’d like it to then they can add ANOTHER model of not real observations… but “simulations “ and “projected” changes in greenhouse gases.
Why only use data from 30 years? Is it because confining data to those set parameters influences the result? Further finn[Ky] wonders if data from Albany New York was considered.
Albany, New York is one of the oldest places if not the oldest place on the Northern Hemisphere to have been recording temperatures. The Annual Average Temperature in Albany, New York in 1822 was 49.2 degrees. Is it not a coincidence that in 2005 the Annual Average Temperature in Albany New York was 49.2 degrees!
The report went on to say that the scientists then fed the data into a computer model used to forecast “summer-to-summer temperature variability” in the eastern United States during the 2080’s. OHHH PLEASEEEE! Is there a weatherman/woman that can give us accurate temperatures day-to-day much less summer-to-summer?
Later NASA admitted that the “standard” model used in the IPCC ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report had inaccuracies, which is why it applied a weather forecasting computer model to their Study. This type of forecasting we can do without.
Activists who believe that global warming is happening think that man made CO2 causes global warming. To repeat; MAN MADE CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING. Personally this boy does not understand what makes man made CO2 different from any other kind of CO2. Isn’t CO2 … CO2?
At the risk of becoming too technical hang with me for a minute because true to himself this boy does not like pain so he will try to make this as painless as he can. When a person wants to make such a claim obviously they must have data to substantiate their claim. Scientists can pick and choose which measurement to use and the choices they make can alter the outcome. For example;
Direct over proxy== Birth certificate vs. teeth. If a boy was trying to determine the age of his Mistress he could use the direct method, which would be to obtain Her birth certificate. Obviously this would be the most reliable. If Her birth certificate was not available a boy could use another method and count Her teeth and by “proxy” determine his Mistress’ age. Clearly this illustrates how even the most educated person would reach different conclusions from the two methods.
Multiple Measurements = Blood pressure. When a person wants to measure something that can fluctuate greatly they do not just take one reading to determine what the measurement is. Blood pressure is an example where many things such as diet, stress, mr. monthly for women and even sitting before a doctor in a white coat can influence the reading at any given moment. Multiple measurements are taken to eliminate and counteract the peaks and valleys caused by many variables that are taken to try to determine a more consistent measurement. Again, obviously something that fluctuates a lot from a variety of factors like temperature might be something to have multiple measurements.
Multiple locations = Average city population. If a boy wanted to find out what the average population of a North American city is he wouldn’t just measure one city and publicize the findings as the average of all North American cities. he would measure many if not all cities to come up with the correct answer. So if a person wanted to determine what the average temperature is of the Northern hemisphere would he just take the temperature of one spot?
Suffice it to say that how things are measured and what data is used can greatly influence the results. Truly if data is manipulated enough a scientist can arrive at just about any conclusion he wants.
Early in the movie, Gore shows us images of Mount Killimanjaro’s disappearing snow cap and blames the loss on global warming. Wrong. Scientists say the disappearing snow is due to changes in land use at the bottom of the mountain, causing drier air to rise up the mountainside.
“Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it.” Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film. Why then, with water vapor accounting for 95% of greenhouse gas does Al Gore fail to mention water vapor? It’s because when water vapor is removed from the data set CO2 is then the largest greenhouse gas and that makes a more dramatic pie chart. Man’s contribution of CO2 is .28%. Trees breathing account for 10 times the CO2 than man does!
When Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia was asked about the science in Al’s movie he gave a surprising assessment: “ Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic.”
Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 are causing significant global climate change.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter.. ( a boy knows Mistress.. he researched the man… that’s his real name) former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki takes apart Gore’s dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,” says Winterhalter. “ In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form.”
Gore tells us in his film, “ Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Artic ice cap.” This is misleading, according to Dr. Tim Ball, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor: “ The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Artic basin in the month of October during the 1960’s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology.”
Gore’s point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. “ It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U. S., to set all-time records,” he says. “ The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual.”
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore’s activism, “ The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.”
Gore says the only people who disagree with him are oil company stooges, but in April sixty (60) of the world’s leading experts in the field asked the Prime Minister Harper of Canada to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada.
It doesn’t take a scientist to know that there used to be an ice age. If that is the truth this world has been warming up for a good long while and without man-made CO2 to cause all the melting of ice.
In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team, which, in 2001, produced the Third Assessment Report, a Bible-length document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports.
So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.
So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:
• They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).
• The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.
• They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data".
• They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise".
The large, full-colour "hockey-stick" was the key graph in the UN's 2001 report, and the only one to appear six times. The Canadian Government copied it to every household. Four years passed before a leading scientific journal would publish the truth about the graph. Did the UN or the Canadian government apologizes? Of course not. The UN still uses the graph in its publications.
The UN, echoed by Stern, says the graph isn't important. It is. Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.
The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend. Data from 6,000 boreholes worldwide show global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now. And the snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing not because summit temperature is rising (it isn't) but because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air. Al Gore please note.
In some places it was also warmer than now in the Bronze Age and in Roman times. It wasn't CO2 that caused those warm periods. It was the sun. So the UN adjusted the maths and all but extinguished the sun's role in today's warming. Here's how:
• The UN dated its list of "forcings" (influences on temperature) from 1750, when the sun, and consequently air temperature, was almost as warm as now. But its start-date for the increase in world temperature was 1900, when the sun, and temperature, were much cooler.
• Every "forcing" produces "climate feedbacks" making temperature rise faster. For instance, as temperature rises in response to a forcing, the air carries more water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas; and polar ice melts, increasing heat absorption. Up goes the temperature again. The UN more than doubled the base forcings from greenhouse gases to allow for climate feedbacks. It didn't do the same for the base solar forcing.
Don’t take this boy’s word…… read for yourself and then decide. Below are links to books by credible authors. Read for yourself.
Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming (Paperback) by Patrick J. Michaels (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0742549232/ref=pd_cp_b_4/002-3520512-5951266?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_r=1J6TES7YNX5MYYW33ZK3&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=252362401&pf_rd_i=B000BZ6UR6
Book Description
Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming convincingly demonstrates the remarkable differences between what we commonly read about global warming and what is really happening. Nine chapters describe major problems with computer simulations of future climate that are the basis for wrenching policies being proposed by world leaders. Anyone who reads this book will come away with a new appreciation of the complexity of the climate issue and will question the need for expensive policies that are likely to have little or no detectable effect on the planet's temperature.
The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change (Paperback)
by Henrik Svensmark (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1840468157/ref=pd_cp_b_4/002-3520512-5951266?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_r=1R01QE1D65NZBF6EVQR3&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=252362401&pf_rd_i=0742549232
Book Description
The authors explain their theory that sub-atomic particles from exploded stars have more effect on the climate than manmade CO2. Their conclusion stems from Svensmark's research which has shown the previously unsuspected role that cosmic rays play in creating clouds. During the last 100 years cosmic rays became scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them. Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer clouds--and a warmer world. The theory, simply put here but explained in fascinating detail, emerges at a time of intense public and political concern about climate change. Motivated only by their concern that science must be trustworthy, Svensmark and Calder invite their readers to put aside their preconceptions about manmade global warming and look afresh at the role of Nature in this hottest of world issues.
This boy does not blame his Owner for accepting the movie as fact because according to a FOX News story the new national poll finds that 77 percent of Americans believe global warming is happening and, of those more than twice as many think it is caused by human behavior (46 percent) than by normal climate patterns (17 percent). About a third says it is a combination of both (30 percent).
Premise:
If global warming causes temperatures to raise then the polar ice caps would melt.
If the polar ice caps melt, the ocean levels would rise.
…and if the oceans rise that means….that they will rise so far that we will all drown!
But let’s think logically…
Assuming increased CO2 emissions really do cause raised global temperatures:
If C02 emissions rise
which cause global temperatures to rise…
And rising global temperatures cause polar ice caps to melt….
Then raised global temperatures would cause more evaporation of water from our oceans…
And more evaporated water would lower the ocean levels back down and would result in more clouds in the atmosphere…
And more clouds in the atmosphere would reflect back more ultraviolet rays from the earth back into space…
And more UV rays reflected away from the earth would result in…….
…Cooler global temperatures!
In other words, the earth is a balanced ecosystem that goes through cycles and rhythms with checks and balances that act as a huge global “eco-safety valve”. Any warming of the earth would trigger the very mechanism that would cool it back down again! As ocean levels might rise due to melting ice caps, so too, evaporation would increase thus lowering the oceans, keeping the right balance.
Once the water in the clouds returns back to the ground, it would allow more UV penetration and thus increase the temperature, keeping and maintaining the earth in a temperature range that sustains life. Think of it as a huge global, geo-biological thermostat!
Is this overly simplified? Sure. But so is the theory of global warming.
While it can be said finn[Ky] has no balls and he walks a fine line to avoid pain it is certainly true that a boy would never tell his Mistress that there is no such thing as global warming because She would blister my ass with a smile on Her face as a boy begged Her to accept the global warming theory just to prove She could make thisone eat his words and show him the correct path. But a boy will say that he thinks the global warming is caused by a lot of political rhetoric. Damn it’s hot in here!
