Climate Change: Fact or Fiction

Southern Baptist Student Creates Media Frenzy Over The Issue of Climate Change

Radical Environmentalism captures a student's imagination, in turn the student produces a document with 46 signatures on it called; "A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change which received a lot of national media attention. This  document however, is not to be confused with the Southern Baptist Convention itself as it has it's own "declaration" on climate change.  According to the student, his inspiration came about when in theology class when his professor was lecturing on human responsibility on taking care of the earth.

Radical Environmentalists have been trying to put pressure on the SBC for a few years now in hopes it would take up it's cause as well and help promote stricter regulation on US businesses so it could supposedly influence the Earth's climate. SBC doesn't regard the computer models as Gospel, and has question them. But as the colleges in SBC get more liberal, there will be an eventual shift in it's policy like in the eyes of the student who caused the media frenzy. We need to take a closer look about climate change because for one thing, it's not all what it appears to be and it could have an affect on the standard of living in countries like the United States.

A Glimpse at Global Warming and Global Cooling

I believe the Southern Baptist Student who is now worried now about the theory of humans changing the climate for the worst and others who agree, do not have all the facts about it. Even President Bush has changed his mind about Global Warming and started a series of mandates proposals such fuel efficient cars, and lower emissions for future power plants to be built in the next 10 years or more. The Earth's air is cleaner now than it was 30 years ago, yet more political figures are worried about it than ever before. 

Media Censors Opposition And Government Grants

Media outlets for years since the mid-1980s began to try and sway public opinion about Global warming after it's "little ice age" of the 1970s was deem to be incorrect. When Clinton took office in 1992, the global warming theory began to take off like leaps and bounds. More regulation was needed they said. There were many opposing voices to the new 'consensus' but they were shunned except for a few other outlets. Take last year for example in 2007, there were reportedly six scientists on the networks including cable who were critical of global warming, compared to over 30 in favor of a man-made warming just on CBS alone. Government grants have also played an important role in creating a 'consensus' as it only will fund those who are "politically correct" on the issue. While it's true businesses have funded some research for the other side of this issue, they are generally looked upon as evil for doing so and do not get the media attention as the other side does. In all reality in it's objectiveness, the government should be funding both sides as there is good cause to do so.

Historical Warming and Cooling

When it comes to historical climate change, let's pick "Greenland" as the focal point of topic. It has a very cold climate, but why call it "Greenland?"  About a 1,000 years ago, the Vikings discovered the country and named it. Why? Greenland at the time was much warmer and the summers were longer, the Vikings were able to support cattle on the country for 300 years before it got too cold and had to leave. The ice during the Medieval Warming when there were no cars or factories around, was very durable. So it's not surprising to see Greenland's ice is still durable in another climate change.

During the 1970's as I remember them personally, was the decade of the scare of Global cooling, as data was showing from 1940 to 1980 a decline in the earth's temperature. Cars and factories polluted a lot back then as regulation wasn't as numerous as it is today. Yet we seen a decline, but unlike Global Warming, the threat of Global Cooling was pushed well into the future, about 10,000 years. However, those same scientists (and more paid for by the taxpayers) who pushed for the theory of the little "ice age" and endorsed by the mainstream liberal media are now advocating human-made global warming.

NASA recently reported the Oceans are loosing their heat since 2003. The warming trend of the oceans peaked in 1998. Data from 1993-2003 showed the oceans warming up and was assumed by certain scientists and the liberal media that this particular trend was following the global warming theory.

The Data Collection for the Earth's Temperature

Surface temperatures thermometers has been showing a warming trend (depending upon what block of years your looking at). While the temperatures collected by satellites and weather balloons displayed no warming trend. I always wondered why temperature reports would always flux for the same block years. Now I know why, it's because the data gets revised quite often. The IPCC surface record was lowered a number of times during the 1950's for example, which it would make it more of a warming trend years later. The balloon temperatures were adjusted as well. They showed no warming trend in the late 70's early 80's. When certain countries whose data was removed from the record, it would show more of a warming trend. So each time this part of the record was attempted to be fix, the results would be more of a warming trend.

Satellites are the most accurate in collecting temperature data that we know of, but space is a rough and hostile environment which create flaws. The sensors generally don't last that long and always are in need of replacements. For example, the National Snow and Ice Data Center had remove it's January and February 2009 arctic ice data because a sensor on a satellite was starting to deteriorate so badly that the sensor was slowly changing ice into water. The error wasn't detected until a month later concerning the flawed data. Also, satellites tend not to stay on the same orbit, but drift. As a result, the data gets tainted. There have been six major revisions to fix the flaws. And again, the adjustment makes it look like there is a warming trend. Now when you take non-climate factors such as water, the Earth is mostly covered in water, the reduction in temperature data begins to appear. This sort of finding never gets included in the IPCC historical data collection. 

How NASA is Manipulating Climate Data

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

Do you think this is Al Gore talking or writing, or some recent liberal blog or a science article by special interest groups? Nope, it's actually the US Weather Bureau in 1922.

The Closing of the Ozone is not so Good After all?

Those of us who remember the 90's well, remember how UN scientists in particular were saying it was vital to correct the so-called hole in the ozone. Spray cans were changed to help close the so-called hole in the ozone.  Well as it turns out, a new study reported by Science Daily was released claiming the closure of the ozone may actually cause more climate change (global warming). The report goes on to say..."In the past few decades, the tropospheric winds in the Southern Hemisphere have been accelerating closer to the planet's pole as a result of increasing greenhouse gases and decreasing ozone. This wind change has had a broad range of effects on the Earth's climate."  Does that mean we can now use spray cans which is not CFC friendly to slow the myth of man-made climate change? The report is absurd, more on the alleged hole in the ozone later...

In Conclusion

If history bares out that God's creation has warmed and cooled historically, then what makes up compelled to try to stop God's will?  How do these computer models really know the difference?  Certainly you can't go by just how long man has been producing CO2, because there have been cooling periods, and warming periods when man was not producing CO2. How would these computer models detect if it's historical warming or not? If Greenland once again starts to warm up like it did during the Medieval Warming period who is to say it's historical or not?

The fact of the matter is, these computer models really don't know the difference, they are only programmed to calculate certain man-made formulas like certain levels of CO2 which is not realistic and then tries to simulate what it has been programmed about the climate and finally makes a prediction. This prediction is what most radical environmentalists believe in and look for in their observations. But these computer models are not accurate as it cannot simulate the weather in it's complete and ever changing situation, and has some major flaws in it's formula as man still don't fully understand God's nature (the climate).