Man Made Global Warming

Alexander Hamilton once said, "If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything." Gullible and foolish are words that come to mind when I see sheepish people rush to embrace man made global warming.

The scientific method states: The system of advancing knowledge by formulating a question, collecting data about it through observation and experiment, and testing a hypothetical answer." Others should be able to replicate your testing with the same conclusions. If you have a consensus of scientists you don't have science you have junk science. Consensus is frequently defined as the lack of leadership.

Question, why would so many scientists support the theory of man made global warming? If your position is that it does not exist how would you secure funding to study it? On the other hand, funding is available to study this crisis if you profess a belief in it.

In the late 1970's a significant number of these same scientists made the claim that due to man made pollution the earth would become a frozen waste land. Claims were made that if the problem was not addressed seriously within a period of time the crisis would be irreversible (sound familiar). The deadline has come and gone.

Now we face destruction from man made global warming. Were they wrong then or are they wrong now, or both? Some of the radical environmental groups had set a deadline for action before the destruction would become irreversible. That date passed approximately five years ago, so kick back and relax, it's over. Nothing can be done about it. They have learned from that lesson and now they no longer attach deadlines. It is phrased now as, immediate urgent action is needed to save the planet. What are they asking us to do in order to save the planet.

• Tax oil companies
• Move to alternative energy sources that don't as of yet work
• Drive smaller more dangerous cars
• Lower home heating temperatures
• Change home lighting, use dim energy efficient bulbs w/mercury
• No burning of coal
• No oil exploration or refining
• No nuclear plants
• Walk don't drive
• Ride bicycles don't drive
• Buy new energy efficient appliances
• Limit cow flatulence
• Further regulate industries and manufacturing
• Purchase carbon-offset credits
• Return to the dark ages by systematically making a villain of every modern convenience
• No bonfires on the beach(air pollution)
• Low flow showers and toilets
• Burning and BBQ days limited (air pollution)
• Four dollar a gallon gas (cost more use less)
• Don't buy books check them out of library, we can all share (personal property rights and collectivism)

This is a partial list to be sure. I recently heard on a news broadcast that the estimated cost of compliance would be in the ballpark of 45 trillion dollars. That might do a little damage to our economy.

Mars' polar ice caps reach temperatures of -225 degrees Fahrenheit. The atmosphere on Mars is 95.32% CO2. Earths' atmosphere consist of 0.03% CO2. Shouldn't their temperature be a lot hotter than ours with that level of CO2? It appears that there is some other factor that determines a planets temperature and we call it the SUN.

Claims are that the temperature has increased .07% of a degree in the last 100 years. How accurate were the measuring devices of that time? Were there ever times in man's history when the earth was either cooler or warmer? Recurring ice ages possibly.

Man made global warming has been blamed for the following and more: rainfall, lack of rainfall, flooding, drought, tornadoes, lack of tornadoes, severity of tornadoes, hurricanes, lack of hurricanes, severity of hurricanes, snowfall, lack of snowfall. Soon, I expect when a student fails to complete his or her homework the excuse of man made global warming will be utilized.

Who is to say what the optimum temperature should be. What if a couple of additional degrees of heat actually benefits man in the long run? Could global warming be caused by natural cycles? Impossible, in that event, we would not be able to feel guilt as we are not the cause of it.

Is this global warming claim political or scientific. Take note of the fact that liberal Hollywood types are lining up as proponents. They have attained their fame and now they are in search of relevance. They glob onto anything for that purpose. In the 50's it was Marxism today Global warming. These are the real geniuses in our society. It's a safe bet that if they are for something and you want to be on the correct side, pick the opposite. It's another Hollywood for humanity episode, liberal guilt? The question and position truly is along political lines. Is this science?

Ninety-five percent of green house gases are produced by nature. We should turn on mother earth. Instead of celebrating Earth Day we should stand around cursing and insulting her, after all it is her fault. Volcanoes, forrest fires, decaying materials, etc. are all natural occurrences. Five percent of total green house gasses are man made. If we stopped all of our activity here, driving, industry, heating, cooling, farming, all of it, no significant adjustment could be achieved. China and India have no plans to stop producing or feeding it's citizens. Unilaterally we cannot even effect the five percent generated by man.

Global warming may possibly be occurring, but it is not man made. Weather cycles have occurred in the past and will continue in the future. Before investing your soul and riches into this nonsense, ask some questions, then decide. My position is we did not cause it and we can't fix it.

A. C. Smithson

Please see greeting.