Reference no: EM13542270
The issue of global warming is all over the media and on talks every where. It's asking how and why we should take personal responsibility to stop global warming? How and why should we take personal responsibility to stop global warming from raising sea levels? How and why should we take personal responsibility to stop green unicorns from attacking flying pigs? To put it in other words, how and why we should take personal responsibility to stop things that do not exist? One of the question, of course, is why should we take personal responsibility to stop something that does not exist. The real and best answer, of course, is that we need to stop and do nothing . The government should stop spending resources on stopping global warming because the sea levels are not rising, global cooling is happening, and that the term "global warming" is a misnomer that should be called climate change which is not caused by Carbon dioxide.
There are no rising sea levels. Dr. Nils-Axel Morner says that there are no climbing ocean levels and regardless of the fact that there were then it would be close to 4" - scarcely recognizable on the shorelines of the world. Dr. Fred Singer, remarking on the U.N. The Intergovernmental Panel of Change in Climate (IPCC) shows that ocean levels are rising, but that this will with time take place over the course of seven millennia, or until the next ice age comes along, and will continue regardless of what President Obama can even contemplate in doing.Yet, there still appears to be rising sea levels. There appears to be more, and more frequent flooding in Hawaii, Alaska, Texas, Florida, Virginia, California and other places throughout the globe. It can also be said that the Sun appears to rise in the East. However, people after Galileo Galilei know that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth; the Earth revolves around the Sun. What is actually happening in the cases of such flooding, according to the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), is not that the seas or waters are rising but that the land is lowering (called subsidence) due primarily to oil, gas and water extraction. In other words, the cause has nothing to do with global warming/climate change. It appears that there are some annoying facts that even a $5.5 billion budget cannot overcome. According to the latest scientific and realistic, not political, evidence, there is no global warming, there has been no world wide warming for the past fifteen years, and the last time that the Earth was warm was in 1998 when the naturally-occurring El Nino was in effect. If there was global warming then ice would be melting. Yet, there was about 50% more Arctic sea ice in November 2013 then there was just one year earlier. (NSIDC.org) And what is global warming? In theory, it is the actual warming of the environment throughout the globe but in actuality, it is the theoretical warming that is shown in computer models. 95% of these computer models have been inconsistent with observations. (NSIDC.org)? Are we having global warming? How long have we had global warming? We seem to have had this supposed activity long enough for predictions to come and go. In 2007, Al Gore opined that the Arctic would be gone by 2014. I must have been asleep in 2013; I am awake now in 2014 and am aware that the Arctic still exists. Perhaps even more famous (or infamous) was the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. The IPCC later confessed that this was more or less propaganda. Besides, since 1998, more than 31,000 American researchers have marked an open appeal declaring their conviction that
"...there is no persuading exploratory confirmation that human arrival of carbon dioxide, methane, or other nursery gasses is bringing about or will, soon, cause calamitous warming of the Earth's environment and disturbance of the Earth's atmosphere" Moreover, the evidence points to the fact that the Earth is going through a world wide cooling stage and that temperature increases and decreases precede carbon dioxide increases and decreases. In other words, temperatures affect carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.There is further evidence that there is global cooling over both the short term (eight years) and the long term (one thousand years). In the case of the latter, it required the department of Propaganda (formerly known as the aforementioned IPCC) to temporarily overcome the true facts.Evidence is always what and how. On May 4, 2014, a weather station in Wichita, Kansas reported the highest temperature ever in that area. Where was the weather station? Extremely close to the airport, where the heat from exhaust gases of large passenger jets is prevalent. Would this not necessarily and obviously skew the evidence in favor of warming? How is the evidence--specifically for global warming being found? (Through computer modeling). There is nothing naturally with this issue and, in fact, it is necessary and good, especially for large and relatively unknown conclusions. For example, there are about 7.2 billion people on Earth.This evaluation is based, in any event to a limited extent, to computer modeling. If the evidence is that there are only 4 billion people on Earth then there is something obviously wrong with the model as it does not comport with the factual evidence. In a similar way, the computer modeling for global warming does not comport with the factual evidence.? Apologists may state that global warming is a misnomer and that it ought to be called climate change. Is the climate changing? Of course it is. Are you changing? Of course you are. Every day, your skin cells die, fall off and are replaced by new skin cells. Are things changing? Of course they are.When its all said and done, you can't venture into the same waterway twice. The Earth's atmosphere changed much sooner than humankind showed up and will keep on changing long after humanity vanishes.Is climate changing in the way that proponents of global change say that it is? Proponents state that carbon dioxide (the supposed cause of the supposed global climate change) amplifies the feedbacks in the environment. People who are more grounded in reality state that CO2 emissions should dampen the feedbacks. Both footnotes (the latter is presented as a video of the former) state that observable data verifies the dampening effects, and negates the hypothesis that carbon dioxide exacerbates the climate.What about the evidence to the contrary? What about evidence that there is global warming? As it can be neither scientific nor realistic then it must be political. What is politics? Politics is about problems not solutions. More specifically and accurately, it is about the promulgation and perpetuation of problems. Truth be told, if there were no issues then what need would society have for politics?
The U.S. government has spent an average of about $13 billion dollars each and every year from 2003 to 2010 for learning about and solving global warming. If global warming were objectively real then would it really need this much money? How much money is needed to verify and prove that 2+2=4? It is only lies and evil that require enormous resources, propaganda, and brainwashing to be accepted by otherwise intelligent people.There is certainly a great deal of resources available. From 2008 through 2012, the United States government spent about $68.4 billion on activities related to climate change, or about $13 billion for each of those five fiscal years, and which is consistent with the long-term spending as mentioned above( Houghton, J. T.). What came out of these activities? The specifics may be somewhat irrelevant. We should ask ourselves, what comes out of studies on carbonated drinks which are funded by Coca Cola? We should certainly not be surprised when such studies state that carbonated drinks are not harmful to people, or state that more people prefer Coca Cola over Pepsi. Similarly, when George W. Bush wanted evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction then that is what he got, regardless of whether or not it was true. If he had asked for evidence that green unicorns were attacking flying pigs then government agencies certainly would have provided such evidence. The important thing is that government activities and interests divide, conquer and steal (tax).? In the end the government should stop spending resources on stopping global warming because the sea levels are not rising, global cooling is happening, and that the term "global warming" is a misnomer that should be called climate change which is not caused by Carbon dioxide. However, given that that there is overwhelming evidence that world wide (global) warming does not even exist, and that the supposed results (like rising sea levels) also do not exist, and that the pretended cause (humans) of this appearance is no more than a crap-shoot in the same way of flipping a coin. Tails, I win; heads, you lose.