The Melting of the Polar Ice Caps

If you don’t think it could happen, you need to wake up. Nature is calling our number and some people still don’t see it. The weather this year of 2010 has been very weird. Tornadoes and Hurricanes are popping up everywhere. The Heat Index rises like Mother Nature has a bone to pick with us. My question is am I right?

The pictures have been everywhere. Their images are both sad and troubling. I’m referring to the pictures of the Polar Bears trying to find a comfortable place to sit. Their discomfort isn’t due to the fact of being overcrowded, it’s actually because they are running out of icebergs. Running out of Icebergs, you may say to yourself. It does sound like a James Cameron film, but it is slowly becoming reality. If the Polar Ice Caps melt, we are all in trouble. A flood of that capacity would be devastating to our world.

The only upside to most of this, is that our society has finally become environmentally involved. Now, we have not only entertainers but politicians as well joining the fight. This includes advertisements and telethons. We may have finally discovered just how precious our Natural Resources are to all of us. No matter, the nation, color, creed, religion or continent, we are all at risk. It’s inspiring to see the whole world began to unite for this worthy cause. The spill in the Gulf has increased our recycling awareness, I just hope that it’s not too late.

Animals and The Melting Arctic Ice Cap

The arguments for global warming can sound a bit vacuous when discussing temperature changes of only one degree. The impact of the melting Arctic ice cap on animals is much more tangible.

There is little dispute that the Arctic ice cap is melting. Since 1979, it has definitively shrunk by 20 percent. The issue amongst most people debating global warming is whether this is because of global warming or just a natural cycle of the planet.

From a common sense point of view, it is difficult to imagine global warming is having no impact on the ice caps. The rising temperature of the planet would seem to be a common sense cause of the melting ice. Alas, common sense rarely seems to be used in debates these days.

As the cap melts, the impact on animals in the area is readily apparent. The primary problem is the reduction of habitat. Polar bears are the most obvious animals suffering from this situation. The habitat of the polar bears is the ice flow areas around the edges of the caps. As the caps melt, the flows are disappearing and pulling back to the extent that there is no ice on the shores. The extent of the melting is such that a Russian ship was able to reach the North Pole in 2005 without the use of an ice breaker. This lost habitat is pushing the polar bears to the edge of extinction. Various estimates put the total population at 20,000 and dropping.

There are, however, positive developments for some species. Recent empirical evidence shows the various seal populations of the Arctic are exhibiting growing population numbers. The exact reason is unclear, but they are appearing more and more in southern regions of the cap, which leads to the conclusion that their habitat is actually expanding.

The receding caps are also opening up extensive new habitats for fish. The melting ice is full of nutrients and fish migration to the new opening seas is astounding. Pink salmon, in particular is being seen spawning in rivers far to the north of their usual spawning grounds.

In general, the impact of the melting Arctic ice caps is a mixed situation. The polar bears certainly don’t see anything to be happy about.

Global Warming – Myth Or Reality?

Global warming. For the last few years it has become a very much talked about and hotly debated topic. Is it real or is it just so much hogwash generated by uninformed scare tacticians trying to suppress free enterprise? Changing weather patterns around the globe seem to indicate that the earth may in fact be in the midst of a global warming cycle. Scientific data shows that the earth’s temperature is gradually rising and climate changes are being seen in areas all around the world as a result. We are already seeing moderate rising of sea levels. Storms are becoming more severe. Areas which don’t normally receive much precipitation are documenting higher than normal rainfall. Areas which would normally experience good rainfall levels are receiving less and less.

The ozone layer over the south pole is being depleted allowing more radiation from the sun to enter earth’s atmosphere helping to raise global temperatures, causing the arctic and antarctic ice caps to melt to levels not known of in thousands and thousands of years. Glaciers in various locations around the world once thought to be semi permanent are melting off and receding at alarming rates. The implications to mankind are enormous and potentially devastating. One half to two thirds of the worlds population live in coastal or low lying areas which could be totally eliminated by rising sea levels brought about by the melting of earth’s polar ice caps. Society as we know it could be totally devastated. Major coastal cities totally wiped out or at the very least made partly or completely uninhabitable. Agriculture severely crippled. World commerce severely disrupted. And the more the earth’s temperature rises the faster the effect is amplified. Some scientists are predicting that global temperatures could rise by ten to twenty degrees and sea levels rise as much as twenty feet or more by the middle of this century due to accelerated global warming.

Quite a scary scenario for our future and our coming generations future. But what is causing this phenomena? Is it all part of some sort of natural cycle of the earth or is it somehow being caused or at least intensified by the way we live and use and abuse the resources of our planet? It is very possible that it is part of a normal cycle of climate changes that the earth has experienced since it was created. The earth has gone through numerous climate changes including ice ages and periods of tropic and Sub-tropic forestation since it was created and started to evolve. But it is also quite possible that this warming cycle is being amplified by human interaction with the atmosphere which protects the earth. Interaction in the form of fossil fuels which emit carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the air which help trap greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Industrial air pollution and pollution from the cars we drive are very possibly the main culprits in the effects we are seeing and experiencing with our atmosphere. Since the beginning of the nineteenth century and the birth of the industrial age, pollution levels in our atmosphere have been steadily rising and as more of the world becomes industrialized the problem only gets worse as long as that industrialization relies on fossil fuels.

What can we as individuals do to help stem this rise in the pollution of our atmosphere and the possible contribution to global warming caused by the use of fossil fuels as our principal means of running our societies? First we can demand that our governments work on developing more earth friendly forms of energy. Wind, solar, geothermal, and other forms of energy which don’t emit harmful toxins into the atmosphere. Second, we can make changes in our personal lives which will help reduce the amount of pollution we as individuals create. The largest culprit among us is the cars we drive. Cars which use fuels which are improperly formulated to burn properly because oil companies formulate their fuels to only burn efficiently enough to actually allow our cars to operate, so that they can make as much money as they can off of their products without regard to the consequences to our planet.

Slowly, alternative fuels and fuel alternatives are being developed. Ethanol, Natural gas, hydrogen, biodeisel along with electric and solar powered vehicles. Hybrid cars which combine part time electric drives with conventional gas powered engines. These are all potential solutions to the pollution problems caused by our automobiles. Yet their full potential remains years away from full commercial development. However there are ways to actually make our present cars run better by improving the fuel mixture so it burns more completely thus eliminating the vast majority of pollution caused by the unburned fuel emitted as unburned hydrocarbon pollution. This can, thanks to committed independent inventors be easily and economically accomplished by incorporating hydroxy gas systems into our present cars. Hydroxy gas systems break down H2O into a burnable gas which when combined with the gasoline/air mixture creates a much better and cleaner burning fuel mixture which will eliminate almost all of the pollution emitted by our cars, but also increase the car’s gas milage substantially because these systems cause the gasoline to be almost completely burned up in the engine the way it should be if it was properly formulated to begin with by the oil companies.

These systems can be purchased pre built for a few hundred dollars or with proper plans can be easily constructed from readily obtainable materials for under a hundred dollars. There are numerous people and commercial entities who try to dispel and suppress this information either because they are too disbelieving that these systems can actually work or more importantly are the commercial entities who realize that these systems do in fact work and if people implemented this technology into their cars that these entities profits would be drastically affected.

It is ultimately up to each one of us to change the way we do things and do what we can to help reverse the damage which we as a race of people have done to the health of the planet which sustains us and all living things on this planet. Whether though real shortage of oil supplies are due to market speculation, if something like the cost of gas rising to five or ten dollars a gallon forces us to make those changes, then ultimately that is a good thing regardless of how much it forces us to change our lifestyles or the short term hardships it might impose on us compared to the effect of killing the only atmosphere we have.

Do Melting Ice Caps Really Point To Global Warming

Global climate change is having a direct impact on the Earth’s sea level and a group of scientists led by two geophysicists is providing the sea level ‘fingerprints’ of polar ice sheet melting to prove it.

Rates of sea level change over the last century vary widely from one geographic location to another even after these rates have been corrected for known effects. The question has always been, why? What is causing these significant variations? Frank Housego, a geophysics professor, is lead author of a paper that claims to have discovered the answer. And it is an answer that has an important impact on the debate over global climate change.

Housego and his colleagues argue that scientists have not widely appreciated that melting from the Antarctic, for example, will have a distinctly different pattern or fingerprint in how it affects sea level than melting from Greenland or small mountain glaciers. It is these patterns that are causing the variation in the global sea level rise.

“We calculated these fingerprints using computer models and then showed that the observed record of sea level change displays the fingerprints,” says Housego. “Sea level is rising, and based on our work and the analysis of sea level data, not only can we assess the total amount melting from the ice caps, but we can also tell where that meltwater is coming from.”

Housego conducted this research with Tom Kane, a post-doctoral fellow and second author on the paper, Robert Dyson of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and Gary Rink of the University of Durham.

“In the past, people have been puzzled by the significant variations in sea levels in different parts of the world,” says Housego. “Like throwing water in a bathtub, many scientists assumed that if polar ice melting were contributing to sea level rise, it would present itself evenly and uniformly across the Earth’s oceans.”

And that assumption, he says, is simply wrong. Housegouses Greenland as an example. It was assumed that if the ice caps on Greenland were melting, all coastal locations would flood evenly.

“In fact,” he continues, “if the entire Greenland ice cap melted, then places relatively close by, like Britain and Newfoundland, would actually see sea levels fall. The reason is fairly simple: despite its small size, the Greenland ice sheet exerts a strong gravitational pull on the seas. As the polar sheet melts, it will exert less pull, resulting in lower – not higher – sea levels around Greenland. Of course, sea levels will rise on average, and as the meltwater moves away from Greenland it will create problems for countries in the Southern Hemisphere.

In the same way, melting from the Antarctic will raise sea levels in the Northern Hemisphere, but not in places like Australia.”

To look for evidence of their ideas, the scientists re-examined the data from tide gauges that measure sea levels. The results startled even them. They found that they could fit nearly all the geographic variations in sea level that they saw in these tide gauges using the distinct sea level patterns they predicted for the melting of polar ice sheets. It is estimated that sea levels are rising, on average, by about 1.8 millimetres per year.

“We’ve really strengthened the link between today’s sea level changes and ice melting and we’ve found a way of unraveling the details of this link. By doing that, we’ve also strengthened extrapolations being made for the future effect of climate warming. And these extrapolations show continued acceleration of sea level rise late into the present century, leading to more flooding of coastal communities,” says Housego.

Factors Contributing To Global Warming

Global warming is defined as rise in the average temperature of Earth, surface air and oceans. According to the studies conducted, it has been explained that the Earth’s temperature has risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. It is one of the major environmental problems today. If this situation continues, then many adverse effects may take place on earth.

Causes Of Global Warming:

Global warming can be caused due to natural calamities or human activities. Natural causes of global warming include bursting of sunspots, solar output variations, volcanic explosions and changes in the Earth’s orbit. Human activities, which increase green house gases, including burning of solid waste, wood, and fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal, and deforestation. Release of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) from industrial processes generates more heat than normal and gets trapped in the atmosphere resulting in global warming.

The main gases contributing to this are carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases are largely produced by thermal power plants that burn the fossil fuels, road vehicles, and industries. Another cause is deforestation, which is caused by cutting and burning of forests for building houses and industries.

Effects Of Global Warming:

Global warming produces several effects, ranging from the effects on atmosphere, economy, and environment and also on health of human beings.

•Due to this, there is an increase in average earth surface temperature, which resulted in the melting of polar ice. Continuous melting down of glaciers can lead to floods and other natural calamities. More increase in temperature may melt the ice and results in the increase of sea level, which will submerge and immerse low lying countries and coastal areas.
•It also affected animal kingdom and some animals become extinct due to loss of their natural habitat or failure to get adapted to the rapid changes in the climate. Animals’ lifestyles have changed due to changes in seasons and migrating birds changed their time of travel and also location of migration.
•Global warming also affected seasons, as there is change in season cycle, the summers are getting prolonged than the winters.
•It is quite responsible for the initiation of some new diseases. This is because, bacteria are very capable and multiply rapidly in warmer temperatures compared to cold temperatures. The increase in temperature has resulted in the increase of microbes, which cause diseases.
•Global warming is also responsible for variation in crop production, because crops are getting destroyed due to sudden change in temperatures or sudden attack of rains. Flash floods and other natural disasters also influence the crop production.
•As a result of it, the earth’s atmosphere is gradually becoming unstable. This is because of heavy rains in the places where there is very less rainfall and drought in the places where there is good annual rainfall. There is also change in months of rainfall.
•Effects of global warming, such as decreased snow level, increased temperature and other weather changes will not only influence humans but also affect complete ecosystems. These changes in ecosystem may lead to extinction of species. Another consequence is Glacier retreat, which means deterioration of glaciers. This may lead to flash floods, landslides and glacier lake overflow.
•Due to this, people may suffer from infectious, vector-borne diseases like malaria and food shortages.
•Due to global warming oceans will become significantly more acidic as more carbon dioxide is trapped into water and temperature of ocean increases. This may lead to extinction of ocean animals and plants and cause hurricanes and storms.
•The polar ice caps are melted which is fresh water and when it is submerged in sea, the salinity of ocean is disturbed and causes imbalance in ocean currents.

Global warming can cause heat strokes, cardiovascular, and respiratory problems. An efficient way to reduce emission of green house gases into atmosphere is to encourage public to use renewable energy sources and conserve energy to possible extent. More advanced technologies must be developed in order to build cleaner cars and improved way to generate electricity. These methods help in minimizing global warming and also to save energy for future generations.

The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming – Is This for Real?

According to many scientists and political organizations the production of greenhouse gases by human activities and the consequent global warming is a serious threat to the whole global environment and thereby to every one of us. But many actors have never really believed this scenario and several scientists are beginning to doubt it in some way or another after having been believers. Let us look at the facts to get to a conclusion, or at least a tentative conclusion.

The burning of fossil material like oil and coal by human activities take away some oxygen from the atmosphere and produce carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) absorb much more energy from the sun rays than other components of the air, and convert that energy to heat. Thus the atmosphere is getting steadily hotter if not other factors counteract the heating.

A hotter environment can furthermore melt permafrost in northern America and Siberia and then captured methane and carbon dioxide in the frozen soil will escape and accelerate the heating process.

The hotter environment can furthermore cause melting of glaciers and the polar ice and make the sea level rise and overflow populated land areas. There are also hypotheses and speculation that the warmer atmosphere will disturb all types of meteorological processes and cause disastrous weather conditions of all thinkable types.

There are however factors counteracting this doomsday scenario and there might also be some possible good effects of global warming.

First of all will much of the produced carbon dioxide dissolve into the sea and lakes and be converted to carbonic acid.

The carbon dioxide will also be utilized by algae and plants in the sea, in the lakes and in forests to grow and proliferate, and the extra produced plant material will further be utilized by animals. In other words will much of the greenhouse gas be taken out and converted to living material so that the earth actually gets greener and more living. The increased living material may be good or bad, but it will take away much of the extra carbon dioxide produced by human activities.

Industrial activities do not only produce CO2, but also finegrained dust that is the poured into the air. This dust can shield for the sunlight and reduce the amount of energy taken up from the sun rays. Increased temperature can also increase the vaporization of water from the sea and make a thicker cover of clouds, which also will reduce the uptake of energy from sun rays.

Then there is a factor seldom taken in consideration during debates about global warming, but is very prominent in the everyday political debates elsewhere. Fossil fuel is a limited resource that the globe soon will be depleted of. Therefore there is a question whether the remaining amounts of fossil fuel really can rise the global temperature to a threatening level, and perhaps rising prizes of fossil energy will take away the threat even before the remaining fuel is consumed.

After having listed the possibly threatening factors and the counteracting ones, the time is come to see if the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases is really increasing and if the global temperature averaged over all areas and over the year is really increasing. The time is also set to rise the question weather such a temperature rise really is a threat or instead a good thing.

Since 1959 the amount of carbon dioxide has been measured continually on the top of Mauna Loa at Hawaii, a place where no nearby source of pollution is disturbing the result. The measurements are plotted in a published graph, named the Keeling curve after the supervisor of the project David Keeling. The measurements show that the averaged atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased steadily from 310 ppm to 390 ppm from 1958 to now.

Before 1958 one does not have good enough data to draw any firm conclusion. The newer figures seem to be significant, however, and one must conclude that there is a probable increase in the CO2 concentration. Since one does not know about any other great enough source of this increase, combustion of fossil materials by human activities is the most probable source.

But has really the average temperature also increased? The year-average surface temperature on Earth is said to have increased from – 0.6 degrees C in 1880 to 0,6 degrees C in 2010. From 1977 such measurements have been done by data obtained from satellites with extremely accurate methods that are calibrated through direct observations made at surface level.

The temperature evidence has however great problems. Before 1979 the calculations were based on data from unevenly distributed weather stations and ship positions and many measurements were done near cities that will always generate a higher temperature than land areas.

The average measurements also vary greatly from year to year and do not show a smooth curve like the concentration of carbon dioxide. In the periods 1880-1920 and 1940-1980 has the temperature declined somewhat instead of increasing. Looking at the evidence on a whole one is still inclined to conclude that there is a global temperature increase going on.

But have the temperature increase had practical consequences? Will these consequences be serious, or will they on the contrary be mainly beneficial? The last years the weather have been wild and unstable in many parts of the globe, with hurricanes, abruptly fluctuating temperatures, brutal showers and thunder, extremely dry and hot local periods, extreme local frost, floods, avalanches and the like. But such brutal weather incidents have come and gone throughout the whole history, and they can hardly be taken as evidence for disastrous effects or the global warming.

More significant is the gradual reduction of the north pole ice, Greenlandic glaciers and Himalayan glaciers throughout the last decades. Since 1979 the area of the North Pole Ice cap has shrunk more than 20%, for example. The sea level height also seems to gradually increase.

These changes have a clear negative effect upon the habitat of certain polar animals. But what is negative at one hand, can be good at another hand. The reduction of the ice can open new living areas, new food sources and new opportunities for economical exploitation both for humans and animals. The general temperature increase might also make the condition of living better for people in northern areas, and make these areas more fertile.

As seen by the above summary, there is probably a global warming effect so far, and this effect will likely increase. But it is by no means certain that the effect will get overwhelmingly negative. The overall effect for the human population might as well be positive.

It is also a great question whether the remaining fossil energy sources are great enough to give a huge impact upon the global environment at all.

Global Warming Is Real and It Is The Biggest Challenge of Our Time

Have you ever heard an academic ridicule someone who didn’t believe in Global Warming? I have, and I typically laugh back when someone pulls that motif with me. You see, I run a think tank, and we are not exactly scientific lightweights around here. Let’s talk.

An intellectual acquaintance recently said to me; “You may not agree, but global warming is real–and one cannot have an “opinion” on the science, as science is science after all, and is based on research studies that have been repeatedly duplicated and supported by other studies over decades… again and again and again, similar results supporting the results of previous studies… in many different countries the world over (the whole world cannot be conspiring, after all).”

Of course, she was right, I don’t really agree. I’ve studied all this since the concept’s inception. Watched the Hunt Brothers fund the Biosphere II project at Columbia University in Tucson, and watched the science abused, numbers doctored, and the whole thing become a religion, due to IPCC public relations games. Look we shouldn’t pollute, that’s stupid, we all have to breathe the air, drink the water, so, I grant that. But CO2 is a trace gas, yes, it is sticky and those molecules gather other pollutants, but CO2 is needed, in fact we look for CO2 signature for exoplanets which may support Earth-like type life-forms. If we are worried about greenhouse gasses then what about Water Vapor? There is tons more of that, I hope no one is suggesting we get rid of all the clouds or worse all the water – we’d end up like Mars for God’s sake.

If 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from non-human sources, surely we shouldn’t curtail our entire civilization thinking we are going to keep the climate from changing, it’s been changing for 5.5 billion years, that’s what it does, and it seems to have a self-balancing feedback loop anyway. Life is still here, the polar bears aren’t going anywhere, they share black bear genes, so obviously the polar bears have been through many ice-ages and warming periods, it’s what life does, it adapts. Trying to control that is like trying to stop continental drift, good luck on that.

After I went through the short list above, I noted my intellectual college student acquaintance backtracked on her assumed statement of Global Warming being real, really fast. No worries this is typical with those who think they know something because they’ve been told, have little if any real knowledge in the topic.

Global Warming Or Climate Change – They Have Finally Found the Real Solution

The global warming issue has been a big problem, but the way it has been fixed may surprise you. They didn’t just cover up the symptoms; they have found how to resolve it once and for all.

The breakthrough really seems to have come as a result of the Climate Conference in Copenhagen that was convened from December 6th through the 18th of 2009. Many influential people met to negotiate measures to reverse the climate’s uphill walk to higher temperatures.

The immediate results of the conference are astounding!

To know there is a global warming issue is not hard to find. You can ask just about anyone in the general public, and they will tell you that they have definitely noticed a change. In fact, I was talking on the phone the week after Copenhagen with a man living in India and, curious if other countries believed there was a problem in this area, I asked him if he thought global warming was true. He said, “Sure, I have noticed that it is hotter weather these days compared to when I was a child.”

But back to how it has been resolved. Just one day after the Copenhagen Conference, Washington DC was buried in record levels of snow. But it didn’t end there, on February 6th, 2010, “According to the National Weather Service… The heaviest [snow fall] on record was 28 inches in January 1922.”

Other cases are: on January 10th, approximately one month after the conference, Houston Texas was set to “… break the long-standing record” cold “set in 1897.” Then on January 11th MSNBC reported that in Miami, FL they beat a record that was set 82-years ago.

But this isn’t it, Europe has experienced similar weather changes since the conference. We have seen the temperature of the planet restored to that which it was 80 to 100 years before cars and things like that are said to have brought about this disastrous global condition of increased temperatures. The world at large has seen record colds and snow since December 17th.2009.

If that is not proof enough, look at it this way. They have changed from calling it “global warming” to calling it “climate change,” which is what we have experienced every season throughout the history of the world.

They finally fixed the problem! And I think they should get a great round of applause. They are finally calling it what it is — common weather changes.

Global Warming Or Global Fraud

Global warming must be real! After all we have top scientists and even failed presidential candidates who says so. With 86% of Europeans polled stating that they “[feel] that humans [are] a direct cause of climate change, and 45 percent believed it could be a threat to them and their families within their lifetimes. Sixty-eight percent said they would either strongly or somewhat support limitations on their purchasing and behavior in support of combating global warming” it is only a matter of time for the skeptical Americans to fall victim to more government control. Those polled said it all, they would be “either strongly or somewhat support[ing] limitations on their…behavior” (Rohinsky) in order to curb a climate threat. This statistic is quite frightening, not because of the climate threat, but because of the vulnerability such beliefs have upon freedoms. By analyzing the nature of scientific studies, past theories, and the current evidence for global warming, it will become obvious that global warming is not a definitive theory, or even a legitimate one at that, and that the sole purpose of such a theory is to allow government to regulate and control every aspect of our lives.

To clearly understand that the sole purpose of the idea of global warming is to control us, we should look at some of the basic history of the theory. On June 24th, 1972 Time Magazine ran an article titled, “Another Ice Age.” In this article is reports from the top scientists of the day including Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory stated that the next ice age was on its way. With reports of 12% increases in ice and snow in the northern hemisphere, temperature drops of 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1940, droughts, cold winters and a entire range of climate irregularities, the conclusion was that of a global cooling.

When we jump forward a couple of decades, the s almost no one has even heard of global cooling, and global warming is the latest idea. All of a sudden, global temperatures had risen, the polar ice caps were melting, and the ozone is nothing short of destroyed. Once again the evidence is lacking, a lot of it is questionable and the only solution for this is for the fearful citizens of the planet to give up some freedoms in order to combat pollution, CO2 emissions, destruction of resources that may combat the warming… The list does not end.

Since the theory of global warming has seen some challenges from a growing number of scientists, the name has once again changed. Now, as even the EPA’s website lists it, it is called “Global Climate Change.” Global cooling was proven wrong when we all realized temperatures were not staying cool, global warming was proven wrong when the science did not add up (as will be explored further in this paper), so the only solution for the agencies and government to look to was to rename the same wrong theories of the past with a vague, cover all name that is “Global Climate Change.” While it has not been proven global climates are changing, it is vague enough to cover any climate pattern that may seem irregular or unexpected, when in fact chance or timing may be responsible rather than the tragedy of climate change.

Since global cooling has now been dismissed it is not needed to completely debunk that form of climate change, but for global warming, an alarming number of citizens around the world believe in it. In 2007, 82% of Americans believed in global warming, rather stunning considering the fact that a growing number of scientists are voicing opposition to the theory. In 1998 Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine launched a petition for those who have degrees and science qualifications to sign if they are skeptics of the idea of global warming. 32,000 individuals with backgrounds in science signed the petition including over 9,000 with PhD’s, far more than the 2,500 scientific reviewers the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used in claiming there was a scientific consensus that global warming is real.

With such a consensus, how come the opposition was 12 times larger? The consensus that all the loyal global warming activists and government officials always talk about just is not there. They want us to believe that the debate is over and now is the time for action, rather than continued research to actually prove it exists. With such a growing opposition, perhaps it is important to actually look at the facts to understand how the theory has come to be attacked as non- plausible and to see what does not add up to cause such disbelief.

To start off with, we should address the question on whether the planet is actually warming. Warming is pretty much defined as an increase in temperature, and global of course means all across the globe. For global warming to be real, then we of course need a warming globe. Common sense really, but then again, common sense might also suggest that the planet is cooling, not warming. For a decade now, 10 years, the planet has experienced cooling (Carter). 1998 was the last year in which warming occurred and since then, including last year the global temperatures have cooled and show no sign of warming this year either.

Temperatures since 2005 have dropped so drastically that all the warming that took place since the 1980’s was canceled out. When a devotee to the global warming cause hears these facts they usually say, ” ‘how silly to judge climate change over such a short period’. Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming” (Carter). They also mention that of course some cooling would have to occur when you start tallying after 1998, since 1998 was a record high year. Well they are forgetting to mention that 1998 was such a record high year because it was a El Nino year, which is a natural cycle that leads to higher temperatures. As they forget to mention that, we also ignore the fact that they also use the cooling of 1965 as their base line. Something else to consider is that the warmest year in recent history in North America was in 1934.

Weather has never been constant, so of course temperatures are going to rise and lower over the years. We should consider that “warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialization, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965.” Periods of warming and cooling occur naturally, it is not global climate change or global warming, it is called “weather.”

As we are deceived and told that the planet is warming, we are also being misled on evidence to support it as well. The most common myth is that the ice caps are melting and our sea level will rise. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported that there was an increase of 9.4%, or 390,000 square kilometers of ice coverage in the year 2008 over 2007. Despite these facts we always see photographs of ice caps being split down the middle, suggesting out ice caps are outright being broken up and vanishing.

Images like this one mislead the public. It suggests the middle of the ice caps, the point that should be the thickest is being ripped apart due to global warming. However, the fact is that the ice caps are increasing in size. If you notice, the photographs never plot the coordinates of where latitude and longitude of where it was taken. If this was done we would realize the truth. Most of the images we see are actually of ice caps breaking apart near the far edge of the shelf. Due to the thickening of the caps at the poles, ice is pushed north or south, closer to the equator, where the planet is warmer. As the ice approaches warmer seas it obviously warms up as well and the molecules start to speed up, melting the ice. Ice is melting because of the fact that the poles are thickening.

As “scientists” parade around with their false facts of warming and melting ice caps, they can not help but to also announce how we are destroying the coral reefs, polar bears are dying, and according to a 2003 study “published in the journal Nature, colleagues analyzed numerous studies involving wild plant and animals for changes due to global warming. Out of the nearly 1,500 species examined, the researchers found that about 1,200 exhibited temperature-related changes consistent with what scientists would expect if they were being affected by global warming” (Than). Considering the fact that scientists went into the study with assumptions on what the effects were (almost as if they were going to get the results they wanted no matter what they saw), they could not scientifically prove what caused the so-called effects.

Everything we hear concerning global warming has to do with doom and gloom. Ice is melting, sea levels are rising, animals are dying, and life is changing, the only thing we can do to end the chaos, is to take action to end the warming. Despite there being no consensus and no real evidence that this warming exists, what the effects would be if it did exist or whether it could even be reversed, governments and agencies all seem to have ideas to curb our freedoms in the name of saving the world. Why is it that every aspect of our life must be controlled? Not a single thing goes unregulated if global warming exists.

The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that the Environmental Protection Agency (APA) released early in the year would give them the right to place a price tag on greenhouse gas emissions. Not excluded from this taxation of natural processes is our livestock. In New York, “The tax for dairy cows could be $175 per cow, and $87.50 per head of beef cattle. The tax on hogs would upwards of $20 per hog,” the release said. “Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits” (Poor). This massive tax upon farmers would cost New York farmers alone $110 million dollars a year, effectively harming the American farm industry, giving the global competitors an upper hand and leaving American consumers having to pay the cost (Gregg). Common sense economics will show that as price goes up, demand goes down, effectively regulating how many animals farmers own, and regulating what the consumer buys.

Taxing livestock would not be the only new regulations we see. A popular idea proposed by those inside of the global warming hoax is the introduction of the carbon tax. “A carbon tax would be paid whenever a molecule of carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Utilities would pay it based on their smokestack emissions and pass the cost to consumers in their monthly electric bill. Each of us would pay it when we fill up with gasoline, based on the content of fossil carbon in the fuel” (Schlesinger). Once again, in the name of fighting global warming we have a tax that would force companies to have to raise their prices to consumers if they choose to continue running business the way they were. As companies are essentially blackmailed into investing their money in “green technologies” to find ways to reduce emissions, the consumer is left to foot the bill. This tax is nothing but telling companies what to invest in or telling them they must raise the price upon the consumer. It is a regulative policy that strips away freedoms from investors, consumers and companies to supposedly curb the carbon emissions that is causing a warming that has not even been proven to exist.

Global warming although never proven, is already gaining ground in the taxation side of regulation. The regulation will not end there though. In California all new car models as of 2009 must display a label that states its “global warming score.” While lawmakers claim it is suppose to be about public awareness, “a law endorsed by the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety would make governments put a monetary cost on the emissions of vehicles they plan to purchase, and add that to expense calculations” (Greenbiz). The car regulation is not ending with just labeling society and adding expenses, in 2002 California led the way with forcing companies to produce certain cars. Assembly Bill 1493 is currently facing legal challenges from auto makers who are quite frankly, not satisfied with having the freedom to manufacture cars of their choosing removed. Instead of making cars that consumers demand as the free market determines, they are now being legally forced to make cars that “reduce global warming emissions” (California Clean Car Campaign). The free market deciding how cars should be made makes sense, the people want it, they demand it. California, along with other states now considering such laws, have chosen to strip away the free out of market and is now even regulating what type of car we drive.

To many paying a few extra dollars or driving a certain car is not a big deal as long as we combat global warming. Those ones usually do not realize how far the regulation can go though. If the planet is in danger, with ecosystems out of order, climate irregular, food supply being cut off and entire cities vanishing beneath the rising water, there is nothing that could be said to prevent the government and their agencies from regulating other parts of our life too in order to save us from ourselves. Karen Coshof, producer of “The Great Warming,” said in a Cybercast News Service interview, “Population is the underlying problem – the catalyst for [global warming]” (Randall). Now, what is the way to combat the “underlying problem?” The answer would be population control. Most are offended when they hear of the Chinese laws setting limits on children for families, with heavy taxation and fines for having too many children, but yet segments of the global warming activists in America advocate population control, and we can only ask ourselves how soon it will be before legislation is put up to a vote as well.

One of the most famous regulative policies concerning global warming is the Kyoto Protocol. “The protocol’s implementation will require such heavy-handed regulation that Andrei Illarionov, the senior economic adviser to President Vladimir Putin who opposed Russia’s ratification of Kyoto, sees it as a recrudescence of the command economy. Appealing last week to Mr Blair to listen more to informed sceptics, he asked: “Have there been any international agreements to limit economic growth and development before Kyoto? Yes, there were two: Communism and Nazism.” As a matter of fact, many economists have determined that Kyoto would cost America billions of dollars. Japan alone would be out $500 billion to cut emissions 12 times (only once) (Johnson). Through regulative policies that would determine what can and can not be produced, how it can and can not be produced, what jobs we can and can not have, what companies can and can not succeed, what investors lose or gain, it is comforting to know that Kyoto would have only reduced global temperatures by 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. So much regulation to control global warming, and like the existence of global warming, the results of Kyoto will just not exist.

We have been raised to believe in global warming. It is in out schools, media, movies, and our professors love to espouse it. They would have us believe that global warming is indeed a scientific consensus, all while constantly changing the name of the climate theory, but yet a growing number of skeptics are speaking out and the evidence to support the so-called warming is just not there. When you combine that with the fact that everything about the theory of global warming just coincidently allows the government and other agencies to control and regulate all aspects of our life, you have the workings of a fraud.

If global warming it to exist in our mind, they can raise our taxes, tell us what animals to own, raise prices on livestock, rise the prices of consumer goods, tell us what industries succeed or fail, determine what investments make money or not, regulate what we drive and take away companies freedom to manufacture based upon the free market, and even go as far as regulate our breeding. Not a single aspect of our life will be spared from regulation in some manner. We as a society have already stated that we would be willing to give up our freedoms to fight global warming if it threatened us. They already have us convinced that it exists, now the only thing left is for the threat to be highlighted. The science and history is against global warming, giving us citizens a hope that the world will open their eyes and see global warming as a regulative fraud.

Is Global Warming Real?

With the increase in population, more motor vehicles on the road and all of the greenhouse gasses floating up into the ozone, there must be an impact of some kind on the environment. Even if you do not believe global warming is real, the pollution, not to mention the chemicals we eat daily ( that’s a topic I will discuss in another article) is a health hazard, but cleaning up the environment is not an impossible mission. It simply starts with a local goal, a little education and motivation to spread that goal.

One of the organizations I really admire is the National Wildlife Federation because NWF President Larry Schweiger goes above and beyond his call of duty to educate the public about global warming, energy conservation and protecting wildlife and our future on this planet. I have to admit that I once was skeptical about global warming, but after much research and especially after seeing “Inconvenient Truth” I believe it is necessary to reduce if not eliminate greenhouse gas and convert to other more natural energy sources. No I do not believe Al Gore made that documentary for self interest.

I believe he sincerely has a passion for educating people about the effects of green house gases. What is great about NWF is the wealth of information they provide at their website, http://www.nwf.org and they are non-political. They have a whole section for kids and you can order magazines such as “Ranger Rick” which includes ice experiments, how to attract backyard wildlife and more. NWF also has many photos of nature and wildlife to view and if you have kid artists in your house, they can enter their artwork and have it posted on the NWF web site. It’s way cool! Anyway, check it out and read a little about nature and global warming and check out some of the pictures.

The reason I am posting this is because global warming has now entered the political arena and somehow I believe the majority of the U.S. population will not take it serious if it becomes nothing more than a debate between politicians trying to win a vote. On a positive note more people are aware of it thanks to politics and the media. Perhaps I and hundreds of thousands of others around the world are wrong, but I would rather take the necessary precautions and find out I was wrong in 20 years than do nothing and suffer the consequences.