Global Warming Myth

Man made global warming does not exist. Evidence suggests that carbon levels are not abnormally high and that the ice caps are not melting away. There are many reputable scientists who question this theory we call global warming. Others would say it is a way for the government to control more and more of our daily lives and to move along an agenda that benefits certain groups and individuals. Man made global warming is a theory being preached to us as gospel and being taught as fact already proven.However there are a large number of people in the scientific community who would disagree. One of the most prominent opponents of man made global warming was Dr. Frederick Seitz. â€Å"Dr. Seitz is a physicist who served as the president of the National Academy of Science during the 1960’s and of Rockefeller University from 1968 to 1978. In 1973 he received the National Medal of Science. †(Oriana Zill de Granados, PBS. org, April 24, 2007, p1. ) Dr. Seitz known as the â€Å"G randaddy of global warming skeptics† (Buisness week, June 24. was an apponent of climate change saying that â€Å"the science behind global warming was likewise inconclusive and certainly didn’t warrant imposing mandatory limits on the greenhouse-gas emissions† (Mark Hertsgaard, Vanity Fair. com, While Washington Slept, May 2006, p3. ). Dr. Seitz believed science was being misrepresented and wrote an â€Å"op-ed page to The Wall Street Journal thrashing the integrity of a 1995 I. P. C. C. and that global warming and ozone depletion were exaggerated threats devised by environmentalists and unscrupulous scientists pushing a political agenda†. Mark Hertsgaard, Vanity Fair. com, While Washington Slept, May 2006, p3) He also wrote that â€Å" This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists h ave laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be–it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page.In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report. † (Dr. Frederick Seitz, Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996) Dr. Seitz was also a main component to and wrote the forward for the Oregon Petition. The Oregon Petition states â€Å"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals.The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of manki nd. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. org) This petition has garnered over 31,000 signatures of scientists who feel that man made climate change is not definitive. Almost 10,000 of those who signed the petition have PhD’s. This petition shows that there are a large number of scientists who question man made global warming exists, unlike the Washington Post writer who wrote about scientists who are skeptical about global warming â€Å"but these few- about 2% of climate researchers- could hold their annual meeting in a phone booth, if there are any left. (Larry Bell, Forbes, That Global Warming Consensus, July 17, 2012 p. 1) These scientists are not just forming an opinion on the subject there is mounting evidence to back up their claims against climate change. We hear about the ice caps melting and watch on television polar bears stranded on floating pieces of ice that have broken off and drifting away. National Public Radio published a story on its website claiming â€Å"Ten years ago, a piece of ice the size of Rhode Island disintegrated and melted in the waters off Antarctica.Two other massive ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula had suffered similar fates a few years before. † (Richard Harris, NPR. org, Humans Role In Antarctic Ice Melt is Unclear, August 22, 2012) This leads to a conclusion that Antarctica is melting away when just the opposite is happening. According to (James Taylor, Antarctic Ice Sets Another Record, Forbes, September 19, 2012) † Antarctic sea ice has been growing s ince satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the ice has been above the 33 year average throughout 2012†.Snow and ice are steadily increasing and growing faster than it is melting. Meteorologist Anthony Watts shows us new information from ICESAT(Ice, Cloud, and Land SATellite) which is NASA’s top satellite for observing and measuring the earths ice and masses. â€Å"During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2. 5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change.The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry. † (Wattsupwiththat. com, Anthony Watts, ICESAT Data Shows Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses, September 10, 2012) So ice and snow are growing in Antarctica and a new stud y by NASA suggests that the continent once was green and full of vegitation. The frozen continent of Antarctica which some believe is melting away due to global warming once was green and suitable for vegitation. The peak of Antarcticas green perioid was between 16. 4 and 15. 7 million years ago during the Micene Epoch†. (NASA. gov, June 17, 2012, p. 2) During this time carbon levels, which is the main contributor to greenhouse gasses and global warming were â€Å"400 to 600 parts per million(ppm)† (NASA. gov, June 17, 2012,p. 2) Carbon levels today are at â€Å"393ppm, the highest they have been in the past several million years. † (NASA. gov, June 17, 2012, p. ) This shows our carbon levels today are almost the level they were millions of years ago when Antarctica was green and yet today snow and ice are building in the region. If carbon levels are almost the same as they were millions of years ago than who was creating them? We are told over and over again we cause global warming from our cars to refriderators to hairspray. The question needs to be answered who was driving in Antarctica 16 million years ago? The answer is nobody. Global warming is being used as a tool generate fortunes for the government and take our liberty away.