Is The Debate About Man-Made Global Warming Over?
Al Gore and most of the mainstream media seems to think the debate is over.
Last year in 2007, less than ten experts who questioned man-made climate change from many scientific observations made it on the networks while over thirty experts who are in favor of man-made climate change based on computer models were on network tv.
Government funding hasn't helped the Global Warming debate either as it gives funding to only those who are "politically correct" on the issue.
Some business have funded various research but are generally shunned by most major media outlets as being the corrupted big business who wants to make money rather than saving the earth.
There are many pleas for a serious debate, one of which is the founder of the Weather Channel who wants to sue Al Gore for fraud on man-made Global Warming.
He says his intent is to "settle the global warming debate once and for all.
" However, it's highly unlikely the issue would be solved even if Al Gore lost the debate.
More than likely Al Gore will not debate at all but only promote his position...
The question remains, is the debate about man-made Global Warming over?I don't think so, there are many questions and observations that cast serious doubt on the issue.
Let's take a look at some of them...
In the winter of the 2007-2008 season we have experienced a "LaNina" year which is the cooling of the eastern tropical Pacific ocean which can impact weather patterns.
It's a natural event that nobody but God can trigger and sustain for a period of time.
LaNina has in years past influenced some of the coldest and harshest winters the world has ever seen.
Last year winter is no exception as it produced one of the coldest and snowiest winters of all time.
In fact, we see the atmosphere starting a cooling period in the last five years while in the 1990s we seen a warming trend.
The "LaNina" year has made it more noticeable.
Before fossil fuels started to burn by man, there was 38 particles per 100,000 in the atmosphere, it of course has went up since the industrial age, and now it's about double that amount, perhaps a little more.
But it still represents a just a "trace" compared to the many other elements in the atmosphere.
So with this very little contribution, how could it affect the earth's weather?Computer models are generally the answer to that question.
Fed by man-made formulas, these computer models make a prediction on the impact of the earth's weather.
The predictions at least the majority of them in different degrees are warming caused by man.
Of course man's lack of understanding of a ever changing complex weather system hurts these models.
Things like certain cloud cover patterns are not included and a distinction from historical warming and cooling compared to man's contribution is not factored in either nor detected.
Also, at times these computer models are so much at odds with each other's outcome it really takes a lot of imagination to come to any conclusions with them.
It would be a mistake to make a policy over this and spend billions upon billions of dollars to try and stop something only God can do.
In my opinion, there is room for debate, the media should allow more scientists who question man-made global warming on when they discuss the issue.
And instead of just funding "politically correct" scientists, start funding those who question the theory.
The debate of global warming isn't over, the debate to show the other side is just beginning.
Last year in 2007, less than ten experts who questioned man-made climate change from many scientific observations made it on the networks while over thirty experts who are in favor of man-made climate change based on computer models were on network tv.
Government funding hasn't helped the Global Warming debate either as it gives funding to only those who are "politically correct" on the issue.
Some business have funded various research but are generally shunned by most major media outlets as being the corrupted big business who wants to make money rather than saving the earth.
There are many pleas for a serious debate, one of which is the founder of the Weather Channel who wants to sue Al Gore for fraud on man-made Global Warming.
He says his intent is to "settle the global warming debate once and for all.
" However, it's highly unlikely the issue would be solved even if Al Gore lost the debate.
More than likely Al Gore will not debate at all but only promote his position...
The question remains, is the debate about man-made Global Warming over?I don't think so, there are many questions and observations that cast serious doubt on the issue.
Let's take a look at some of them...
In the winter of the 2007-2008 season we have experienced a "LaNina" year which is the cooling of the eastern tropical Pacific ocean which can impact weather patterns.
It's a natural event that nobody but God can trigger and sustain for a period of time.
LaNina has in years past influenced some of the coldest and harshest winters the world has ever seen.
Last year winter is no exception as it produced one of the coldest and snowiest winters of all time.
In fact, we see the atmosphere starting a cooling period in the last five years while in the 1990s we seen a warming trend.
The "LaNina" year has made it more noticeable.
Before fossil fuels started to burn by man, there was 38 particles per 100,000 in the atmosphere, it of course has went up since the industrial age, and now it's about double that amount, perhaps a little more.
But it still represents a just a "trace" compared to the many other elements in the atmosphere.
So with this very little contribution, how could it affect the earth's weather?Computer models are generally the answer to that question.
Fed by man-made formulas, these computer models make a prediction on the impact of the earth's weather.
The predictions at least the majority of them in different degrees are warming caused by man.
Of course man's lack of understanding of a ever changing complex weather system hurts these models.
Things like certain cloud cover patterns are not included and a distinction from historical warming and cooling compared to man's contribution is not factored in either nor detected.
Also, at times these computer models are so much at odds with each other's outcome it really takes a lot of imagination to come to any conclusions with them.
It would be a mistake to make a policy over this and spend billions upon billions of dollars to try and stop something only God can do.
In my opinion, there is room for debate, the media should allow more scientists who question man-made global warming on when they discuss the issue.
And instead of just funding "politically correct" scientists, start funding those who question the theory.
The debate of global warming isn't over, the debate to show the other side is just beginning.