More Evidence Disproving the Global Warming Theory

September 15, 2010

I thought that I would take a break from relationships and sex and write about something else near and dear to my heart. Al Gore and the media have declared that global warming is a fact. Read my piece and see if you still think so after reading it. It is based upon hard science that is not opinion or consensus but real hard facts.

Many scientists have gone to great pains to put the blame on the temporary slight increase in the average global temperature on CO2. There are no scientific experiments according to the Scientific Method to prove this. The scientists conveniently forget to tell you that we have been in a world wide cooling cycle for the last 8 years with record low temps being set around the globe. Of the billions of dollars being funded to study global warming, there is none for refutation research in violation of The Scientific Method. There are no double blind studies like legitimate scientific research.

In fact, the IPCC does not respond to or publish refutation pieces by mainstream scientists. Their whole theory is based upon highly flawed computer modeling that posits that CO2 will rise into the atmosphere and stay there for 100 years. The simple answer to that is that CO2 has a specific gravity (relative to air) of 1.52 which means that it is 152% heavier than air and sinks to the ground when released. The scientists trumpet the fact that we have had an 80 ppm (parts per million) increase in CO2 in the last 100 years. The fractional equivalent of 80 ppm is 8/100,000ths of 1%. That is a trace amount by any legitimate measure. What you have is wind blown particles that settle out when the wind dies down just like dust.

There can be a case to be made for man made or anthropogenic global warming but it has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. We have over 5,000 jets flying over our air space in this country at any one time. That does not include the rest of the jets flying around other countries. These jets have an exhaust temp of 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. That could add to the average temperature increase.

We have millions of miles of asphalt roads that heat up and reflect back the heat causing increased temps. We have millions of houses with asphalt shingles that heat up and reflect heat back into the atmosphere.
We have millions of cars and trucks that put heat out into the atmosphere.

Then we have the heat sensors for recording temps being set up in cities. This gives a false positive for increased temps because of the “heat island effect”. This is a scandal that is little reported in scientific circles much as less in public circles.
We also have industry as well as heating plants burning coal to generate electricity that all contribute heat into the atmosphere.

The best microcosm of the globe can be represented by the Mall of America located in Minneapolis , MN. It is the second largest mall in the world. The temperatures routinely get down to 20 below zero in the wintertime. Now the Mall has no heating apparatus or furnaces of any kind. In spite of this, it stays a comfortable 68 degrees F in the winter time. That is an increase of 88 degrees F from outside ambient temperature. How is this possible? All of the heat from the lights in the mall plus the aggregate body heat from all of the visitors.

We have increased the world population by billions of people. Isn’t it possible that the increase population and all of the other heat causing factors mentioned in the article could result in the one degree increase in world wide temperatures. Does this not make more sense than CO2 which is a heavier than air gas that sinks to the ground when it is released. There is a principle in science called Occam’s Razor. The gist of Occam’s Razor is that the simplest explanation is usually correct. Does not my explanation make more sense than CO2? You decide and let me know what you think


More Evidence Disproving The Global Warming Hoax

May 14, 2010

We have been massively conned in this country.  The liberal media have sided wth some lefty liberal scientists to pull a big con on the American public.  What you read on here, you won’t find anywhere in the mainstream media.  You should have.  It is their obligation to provide both sides of the issue.  Editors routinely flout journalistic ethics because they can.  Journalistic ethics are all voluntary.  Every other profession has ethics, the violation of which gets you kicked out of the profession except journalism.  Why should the media get a pass on integrity?

Scientists Trash The Scientific Method

At least the unethical and/or the leftist scientists do. The Scientific Method was invented by Galileo to insure ethical research protocols independent of popular thinking. Galileo was persecuted by the scientific community when his research indicated that the Earth revolved around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the Earth. This contradicted popular consensus of the time. He died penniless, persecuted and correct in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus.

     
     
     

Today ethical scientists abide by the Scientific Method in their research. The unethical scientists and leftists have abandoned that protocol in favor of “consensus”. The IPCC, Al Gore and the media keep talking about consensus about Global Warming theories. They don’t talk about any proofs derived through the Scientific Method because there are none.

Part of what makes the Scientific Method credible is the solid foundation that requires any scientific hypothesis to be verifiable, testable, repeatable and open to critique by any scientist in the world. In fact scientific journals are published to disseminate research findings and make them open to scientific peers. In response to that, we have scientists complaining around the world that they are “blackballed” from getting their refutation articles printed in scientific journals. We have had had a Congressional hearing about the widespread censorship preventing scientists from coming forward to expose the fraud. We have had mainstream professors and research scientists complaining that the IPCC suppresses any dissenting articles and does not even report that there are any. We have Nancy Pelosi openly threatening any scientists who don’t toe the PC line on global warming to cancel their research grants. That is not only a violation of scientific protocols and the Scientific Method, it is felony extortion. This woman has not been called on it much as less prosecuted. 

Here are some scientific refutation facts that you should be aware of: Man caused global warming due to increased CO2 is a theory based upon a flawed computer model on the part of the IPCC. That theory posits that CO2 will rise into the atmosphere and stay there for 100 years. The IPCC claims that this will be cumulative and causing a “green house effect” thus causing the earth to warm.

Here is the scientific refutation. CO2 has a specific gravity of 1.52 which means that it is 152% heavier than air and thus sinks to the ground when released. This is why we use it in fire extinguishers. The CO2 sinks to the ground and starves a fire from oxygen. You can’t do away with the Law of Gravity. Now it is true that we have wind blown particles of CO2 in the air, just like we have wind blown dust particles in the air. The truth is that when the wind dies down, gravity pulls the dust and the CO2 out of the air and it settles back down to the ground. We went from 300 PPM (parts per million) before the Industrial Revolution to 380 PPM over the last 100 years. That is an increase of 80 PPM. The fractional equivalent of 80 PPM is 8/100,000ths of 1%. That is a trace amount by any objective standard. Trace amounts are allowed in our food. The FDA even has standards for trace amounts of rat droppings in our food.    

  There can be a case to be made for man made or anthropogenic global warming but it has absolutely nothing to do with CO2.  We have over 5,000 jets flying over our air space in this country alone at any one time with exhaust temps of 1,800 degrees.  We have increased the world population by several billion and have millions of cars and trucks contributing to increased heat.  We have millions of miles or asphalt roads and asphalt shingles absorbing heat and radiating it back.

     The best microcosm of the globe can be represented by the Mall of America located in Minneapolis , MN.  It is the second largest mall in the world.  The temperatures routinely get down to 20 below zero in the wintertime.  Now the Mall has no heating apparatus or furnaces of any kind.  In spite of this, it stays a comfortable 68 degrees F in the winter time.   The answer is the heat from the lights in the mall plus the aggregate body heat from all of the visitors. 

The scientists have conveniently ignored that we are in a world wide cooling cycle for the last 8 years with record low temps being set around the globe in total contradiction to the theory.  

 Isn’t it possible that the increased population and all of the other heat causing factors mentioned in the article could result in the one degree increase in world wide temperatures.  Does this not make more sense than CO2 which is a heavier than air gas that sinks to the ground when it is released.  There is a principle in science called Occam’s Razor.  The gist of Occam’s Razor is that the simplest explanation is usually correct.  Does not my explanation make more sense than CO2?  You decide and let me know what you think.


More Evidence Disproving The Great Global Warming Hoax

February 11, 2010

 

     The scientists have gone to great pains to put the blame on the temporary slight increase in the average global temperature on CO2.  There are no scientific experiments according  to the Scientific Method to prove this.  The scientists conveniently forget to tell you that we have been in a world wide cooling cycle for the last 8 years with record low temps being set around the globe.

     There can be a case to be made for man made or anthropogenic global warming but it has absolutely nothing to do with CO2.  We have over 5,000 jets flying over our air space in this country at any one time.  That does not include the rest of the jets flying around other countries.  These jets have an exhaust temp of 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit.  That could add to the average temperature increase.

     We have millions of miles of asphalt roads that heat up and reflect back the heat causing increased temps.  We have millions of houses with asphalt shingles that heat up and reflect heat back into the atmosphere. 

     We have millions of cars and trucks that put heat out into the atmosphere.

     Then we have the heat sensors for recording temps being set up in cities.  This gives a false positive for increased temps because of the “heat island effect”.  This is a scandal that is little reported in scientific circles much as less in public circles.

     We also have industry as well as heating plants burning coal to generate electricity that all contribute heat into the atmosphere.

     The best microcosm of the globe can be represented by the Mall of America located in Minneapolis , MN.  It is the second largest mall in the world.  The temperatures routinely get down to 20 below zero in the wintertime.  Now the Mall has no heating apparatus or furnaces of any kind.  In spite of this, it stays a comfortable 68 degrees F in the winter time.  That is an increase of 88 degrees F from outside ambient temperature.  How is this possible.  All of the heat from the lights in the mall plus the aggregate body heat from all of the visitors.

     We have increased the world population by billions of people.  Isn’t it possible that the increase population and all of the other heat causing factors mentioned in the article could result in the one degree increase in world wide temperatures.  Does this not make more sense than CO2 which is a heavier than air gas that sinks to the ground when it is released.  There is a principle in science called Occam’s Razor.  The gist of Occam’s Razor is that the simplest explanation is usually correct.  Does not my explanation make more sense than CO2?  You decide and let me know what you think.

End of Submission


%d bloggers like this: