TIFTON —
My Mother taught me, many years ago, that “sticks and stones my break my bones but names will never hurt me.” In a recent article it was insinuated that I am a right-wing extremist.
I have spent several years of my life inside a steel tube, under the oceans of the world. Needless to say, a bunch of bored sailors, who have nothing better to do than to antagonize their counterparts, is the norm, so I have had some of the best try to insult me, to no avail. I am a proud Christian, conservative veteran and will make no bones about that.
With that said, the article was an opinion piece with the premise that because facts did not come from a source the writer liked, it makes them ignorable. This goes right to the root of the problem of the global warming discussion.
Many scientists have refuted man-made global warming and offered much evidence against it. Because proper scientific method, where research is checked and tested vigorously, by said colleges before final conclusions are reached, was not followed, we are here at present day, where trust has been broken in the scientific community. Hence, the dialog we are having right now. Another thing the article does is open up the door to good debate and I do like to debate.
So, in order to focus a little bit more around some of the facts and to further the discussion, I will spell some of the recent facts out.
Fact: Head of CRU (Climate Research Unit) Phil Jones resigned due to the recent scandal.
Fact: Phil Jones admitted there might have been medieval warming.
Fact: Phil Jones admitted 15 years of no “statistically significant” warming.
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/ Note the Daily Mail is mentioned in this article along with the BBC interview info http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm )
Fact: In the e-mail Phil Jones discussed destroying the base data and formulas used for alterations to base data.
Fact: Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann under investigation, schools investigation one charge still pending. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/02/universities-take-action-on-climategate/ )
Fact: CRU disposed of the raw data. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/ )
Fact: CRU data was used in Nasa’s report.
Fact: NASA data had errors found in it. ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/?page=2 )
Fact: Some elite individuals have personal financial and regulatory power interest invested in forcing global warming agenda. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/02/pseudoscience-cesspool/ — more to think about GE, Al Gore, Cap N Trade to name some extras here in the states. This is bigger than one political party; it is a power grab.)
All the above are facts and easily found and researched. The only question is what your opinion will be after researching for yourself and what the meaning is behind these facts to you.
Now, let's try a little math experiment. First step is to remember basic chemistry, where CO2 is a chemical compound, which has one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. This is important because oxygen and carbon are the root elements of the processes, which are always occurring.
We breathe in oxygen; our body processes it, then combines the carbon and oxygen. Then, we breathe out small amounts of CO2, just as fuel combustion and the natural processes do (volcanoes, animals, bacteria, dying vegetation, and oceans).
Then, there are things like plants and plankton, which reverse these processes and separate the CO2 back into carbon and oxygen. For the purpose of this experiment, let’s assume no change in this process and natural made CO2 levels are perfectly balanced with natures breakdown process. Also known is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is approximately .038 percent. The atmosphere mass is approx 5 x 10 to the 18th power kg (5 quintillion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth ) — yes, one of the few things with numbers higher than the national debt.
In 2005, man-made CO2 was 3 x 10 to the 13th power (30 trillion http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/globalcommunity/crudeoilfuture.htm ) — yes, smaller than the nation’s total national unfounded liabilities. For the year of 2005, we can figure out what percentage of increase man made CO2 was, 3 x 10 to the 13th power / 5 x 10 to the 18th power = .000006 = .0006%. This would show, at the end of 2005 the atmosphere would have .0386 percent. Add the knowledge that H2O (water) is a much more effective greenhouse gas and is 23 times more prevalent in the atmosphere. These are the facts and here are the questions. Has plant life and plankton growth been consistent over all time? Is it reasonable to believe an increase of plant and plankton would not occur? God designed a marvelous world and I, for one, believe, even if mankind did actually cause a true increase of CO2, God's creation can overcome this, as it has overcome far worse natural disasters in the past.
I will conclude with this. I write in hopes to inspire others to ask questions and research subjects on their own. One of the big problems we are suffering, as a nation, is apathy. Too often, in the past, good men and women have remained quiet and ignored things going on around them, thinking it would just go away. This was and is wrong, for all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing. Altered quote questionably attributed to Edmund Burke.
Jeff Korson
Alapaha
