The Global Warming Myth

We as modern day people have discovered a number of ways to improve our lives on this planet and to improve the environment on our planet. The reduction of greenhouse gases, better water purification, and the increase in people who recycle have all been important and necessary steps forward toward a healthier Earth. While it is impossible disagree with the fact that we need to be responsible stewards of this planet, a question on almost everyone's mind is whether or not global warming is real or a hoax. While one would hope that a hoax would not be perpetuated on a multitude of media, from the television to the internet, irrefutable evidence is now coming to light that a number of things have been greatly exaggerated- if not lied about outright. A number of people are responsible, from the high-profile Al Gore to climate scientists guilty of hiding important data, including the top climate scientist, Phil Jones. With a media that claims every elemental event is proof that climate change is upon us, now is the appropriate time to take stock of the facts out there regarding global warming- always assuming, that is, that you can get it from the scientists.

The number one gas to blame for global warming and climate change(according to the media, Al Gore, and about 60 scientists) is CO2. CO2 accounts for approximately 0.037% of the world's total atmosphere. The rest is made up of water vapor, ozone, CH4(methane), and N20(nitrous oxide). While CO2, CH4 and N2O could certainly capable of contributing towards the greenhouse effect on Earth, the majority of our atmosphere is- and has been( at least since cavemen where around) composed of water vapor and clouds. And while it's important to limit and reduce the amount of CO2, CH4 and N2O we put out into the atmosphere, the amount currently floating around above us is not nearly enough to ring the bell for global warming. CO2 is a natural part of our environment. It is necessary for plants and trees, who by their intake of carbon dioxide give off oxygen, the very thing we need to live.

It's hard not to think Al Gore spends the time not already dedicated to driving around in his SUV or being flown in a private plane to speaking engagements communing privately with the gods of global warming. Despite being presented again and again with opportunities to address the ever mounting piles of evidence that debunk climate change as a sham, he refuses to do so. Instead he continually speaks about the subject as if we all had thousands of dollars in a bank account somewhere saved to spend on the newest scientific crisis of our time. Ask him to provide proof however, and he will call it "an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics". So asking for proof and raw scientific data is a hostile demand? How? I suppose the proper thing to do would be to just sit mutely and eat every spoonful of horse manure that Al Gore and his pals try to feed us. While only admitting to "about two mistakes" in the thousands of pages (probably not printed on recycled paper) of work done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the last 22 years he ignores the thousands of pages of honest, genuine data proving that his entire book was written based on dishonest scientific reports, fixed to go along with what people wanted the public to believe it. In an article published on Febuary 27, 2010, he addresses approximately three of the reasons why people don't believe climate change is a real threat.
1) "It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of the debris covered glaciers in the Himalayas,"
2)"And used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate" and lastly
3"In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law. "

Now, let's address the three statements. In 2007(conveniently the same year it shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore), the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made a rash announcement that it was "very likely" by 2035 the Himalayan glaciers would disappear, also that "(T)he receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases."
Where did they get their data from? How is it that they are able to not only predict that the Himalayan glaciers would decrease dramatically AND that it is due to man-made greenhouse gases?

This same climate panel published information that wound up being partly false provided by the Netherlands government, unmistakably without fact checking the information they intended to use as "proof". The published data based off of information given by the Netherlands' government stated that 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level, and logically is therefor more susceptible to flooding as a result of rising sea levels and flooding from the melting of the glaciers. However, only 26% of the country is below sea level. An additional 29% is susceptible to flooding from rivers. So, in total, 55% of the country is more likely to be flooded. Now, if the glaciers were actually at risk of melting this would be a great cause of concern. The flooding from the glaciers would increase the sea levels which would in turn, increase the amount of water in the rivers which would flood the Netherlands. However, while that would be a cause for concern if the data provided was accurate, it is not. The Dutch can breath easy again.

The emails that were stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain highlighted the scandal. Finally we had proof of what we've really known all along- that global warming is a hoax. The emails showed that dozens of scientists-including some in the U.S, conspired to keep the global warming hoax alive and in the media. In emails dating as far back as 1996, scientists in the U.S and the U.N discussed ways to rebut actual, fact-filled findings in scientific journals and magazines. They discussed ways to keep the public from finding out the truth. Working together, the talked about how they want to work to make sure the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reflected their opinions and views and excluded others.
Why go through all this effort to cover up something you parade around as the truth? If something is true, then it would not require emails to be deleted or hid. It certainly would not require data to be changed.

This is not science. This is madness.




SOURCES:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/science/earth/19climate.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/inconvenient-truth-for-al-gore/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/02/phil-jones-admits-sending-awful-e-mails/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/uea-hacked-climate-emails-foi