This was the rough stage of a paper I was writing to share with a group that believes Gore to be the next Messiah and they nearly worship him...good people, just not as informed as they would like to believe they are.
Once I started probing deeply, I decided not to deliver the message. I have no need to be “right” and did not want my words twisted or added to, so that it would appear that I were radical.
Not interested in getting on any lists.
We have been living off grid since 1999. I'm amazed at how it has enriched our lives, beyond measure, and proved us with ample learning opportunities and a chance to with how our small environment responded under the hand of what we hoped was responsible stewardship and respect for our earth and it's abundant resources.
To participate in reclaiming a former alfalfa field and second/third growth forest, to see how they could adapt and emerge into a more harmonious balance of the land and habitation in general than before we lived continues to be quite an experience.
Most consider themselves to be good stewards and each of us has the ability to mold our own environment, thereby effecting by examples, others that might choose to follow or lead on another path. Our respect for one another is great enough to allow a diversity of opinions and some spirited debate.
In this particular topic of challenge to America there are a few important areas that can be explored in depth, so we can be certain that our opinions are evidence based on our personal research. While we are all truth seekers, how do we go about finding the truth?.
If we are to be proficient truth seekers, how do we find the truth? How can we believe anything? How do we know what to believe and what to dismiss? How are we able to separate fact from fiction or fact from self serving agendas or from out right misrepresentations? How do we trust the person or media who is telling us something?
Are they telling us or providing information for us to make our own decisions? How do we make a judgment on what is really going on? Are our opinions bought and paid for or built on independent research? Do we form our opinions from visual imagery or long hours of research, which is easier and which has a higher probability of accuracy?
Today, finding a truth is easier than ever, there are no important secrets floating around out there that don't eventually have a thread to the Internet. Everything is at our finger tips....there is literally access to every major university in the world, the worlds libraries & newspapers, wire services, classes, product availability, medical information, organic government documents, hearings, court rulings, police reports, legislation, speeches, entire books not even to mention all of the special interest groups, Blogs and the plethora of other interesting things that occupy busy minds.
That isn't to imply that if it's online, it's a sacred truth, no more so than any other form of media. The Internet is simply an amazing tool we can use to sift through enormous quantities of information that makes research so much quicker and easier than trudging off to the library or writing for copies of original documents on critical resources. to determine the truth. Things that used to take days and weeks pouring through libraries now can be accessed in minutes.
Sixty years of television has changed this country, it's an invited guest into most of our homes, it serves as a baby sitter, it fills the silence of an empty room, it enables busy lives to be entertained 24/7, it helps people unwind after long commutes, it shows the latest fashions world wide, provides weather and news.
Many believe that watching TV is a harmless, entertaining activity worthy of our attention, but there are some eye-opening things to consider. The average American family watches about 5 hours daily. Television is essentially a platform for elite advertisers and policy leaders of the dominant society to peddle their wares by directly touching your emotions with a steady stream of images.
Every year the food and drug companies spend well over $150 billion on marketing messages to U.S. consumers, designed to influence their food and medical choices. The majority (75 percent) of commercial network television time is paid for by the 100 largest corporations in North America. Some of these companies even have budgets in the billions, and not surprisingly these budgets have the power to influence TV producers to create television that suits their agendas, and frequently, these agendas are not aligned with our best interests.
Watching highly emotional and dramatic programs affect our brains chemistry and puts us in a receptive state, thereby shutting off our logical process. Pictures truly paint thousands of words and are carefully selected and chosen for the desired message and impact.
As an adult I've rejected television and did not watch it growing up, so my opinions are formed without the benefit of advertising sponsorship. When I hear people from diverse backgrounds speaking the same few lines, or mentioning the same few hot topics, I know their opinions could not have been formed after independent research, but are formulated courtesy of social engineering via conventional media resources such as television, Hollywood or corporate newspapers. My opinions are no greater or less than anyone else, they are equal to the highest voice of the land, and equal to the person without voice.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and it is not a moral issue. My opinions are formed only after exhaustive research and are offered not to divide us or even to argue; but only to inspire anyone who has perhaps not considered how different the conclusions can be when all sides are considered and with the media is ignored. For your consideration, some random bits of science based information.
This is an interesting link that compares daily Arctic sea ice maps. For those who are curious if recent reports are exaggerated or if the Arctic has always contracted and expanded.
Read about it!
August 29, 2000 edition of the New York Times, the NSIDC expert, Mark Serreze, said:
"There's nothing to be necessarily alarmed about. There's been open water at the pole before. We have no clear evidence at this point that this is related to global climate change."
During the summer of 2000 there was "a large body of ice-free water about 10 miles long and 3 miles wide near the pole". Also in 2000, Dr Claire Parkinson at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center was quoted as saying: "The fact of having no ice at the pole is not so stunning."
“Secondly, the likelihood of the North Pole being ice free this summer is actually quite slim. There are only a few weeks left where the sun is high enough to melt ice at the North Pole. The sun is less than 23 degrees above the horizon, and by mid-August will be less than 15 degrees above it.
Temperatures in Greenland have been cold this summer, and winds are not favorable for a repeat. Currently, there is about one million km more ice than there was on this date last summer.”
So what is really going on at the poles? Satellite records have been kept for polar sea ice over the last thirty years by the University Of Illinois. In 2007 2008, two very different records were set. The Arctic broke the previous record for the least sea ice area ever recorded, while the Antarctic broke the record for the most sea ice area ever recorded. Summed up over the entire earth, polar ice has remained constant. There has been no net gain or loss of polar sea ice since records began.
This is an interesting site regarding the Polar bears and the heart wrenching photos that have circulated giving the false impression that they, as a species, are in danger..
Excerpted from above site:
Environmental activist groups have offered anecdotal evidence that four polar bears drowned while swimming in Alaska's Beaufort Sea, and that three polar bears attacked and ate other polar bears, allegedly due to hunger. In addition, environmentalists contend human activities are causing global warming and that such warming will melt most of the ice at the North Pole within 50 years. If that happens, they argue, polar bears will be unable to hunt seals, their preferred prey, without the polar ice.
Since the 1970s, while much of the world was warming, polar bear numbers increased dramatically, from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 bears, a higher polar bear population than has existed at any time in the twentieth century.
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with Nunavut Territorial government in Canada, pointed out in testimony to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that modest warming may be beneficial to bears since it creates better habitat for seals and would dramatically increase growth of blueberries, upon which bears gorge themselves when available. Taylor explained Alaska's polar bear population is stable and recent research shows the polar bear population in Canada alone has increased 25 percent from 12,000 to 15,000 during the past decade, with 11 of Canada's 13 polar bear populations stable or increasing in number.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has written on the threats allegedly posed to polar bears from global warming. According to the WWF, there are approximately 25,000 polar bears in about 20 distinct populations worldwide. Only two bear populations--accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total number of bears--are decreasing, and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, such as the Baffin Bay region.
By contrast, another two populations--about 13.6 percent of the total number--are growing, and they live in areas where air temperatures have risen, near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea. As for the rest, 10 populations representing about 45.4 percent of the total number of bears are stable, and the status of the remaining six populations is unknown.
Many analysts see the proposal to list the polar bear as threatened as not so much about the welfare of the bears themselves but as an effort to force the Bush administration to adopt regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Steven Milloy, publisher of www.JunkScience.com and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, said "If the administration admits that the bear is dying due to climate change, it may be forced to start energy rationing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions .”
Another site of interest
“In Canada, we have a healthy polar bear population that has just gone on a Protected Species list; what is that about? This is clear proof the NGOs and EPA do not have a clue about science. Two polar bear populations on Baffin are decreasing in number, but this is a region of the arctic that is cooling not warming.
Polars are stable or increasing!
Bear protection is all about a mass movement that intends to destroy global prosperity by crowd control in the brave new world. Science should not be secondary to modeling under any serious circumstances because there is too great a likelihood of missed assumptions and empty logic rendering the conclusion dead wrong.”
The Polar Bear Photo was taken by an Australian marine biology student while on a field trip in August, when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt. Associated Press released the photo two and a half years after it was taken, on the day the United Nations released its major global warming report. The National Post (Canada), Gore pays for photo after Canada didn't, 23rd March, 2007
There is only one problem / The Polar Bears are NOT becoming extinct. They are actual GROWING in numbers. Back on January 30, 2008, The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released the following report. U.S. Senate Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears .
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations “may now be near historic highs.”
The alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. And the methodology of these computer models is being challenged by many scientists and forecasting experts.”
The American Physical Society, (www.aps.org) an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball is featured in the new documentary debunking global warming, titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” “Global warming is supposed to be “science.” It’s hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein’s letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: “If you continue to speak out, you won’t live to see further quantum mechanics.”
Three top scientists have once again contradicted the claim that a “consensus” exists about man-made global warming with research that indicates CO2 emissions actually cool the atmosphere, in addition to another peer-reviewed paper that documents how the IPCC overstated CO2’s effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.
Professor George Chilingar and Leonid Khilyuk of the University of Southern California, and Oleg Sorokhtin of the Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences have released a study that they claim completely contradicts the link between CO2 and global temperature increases. “The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere,”
CO2 is the building block for & sustains all life, food & energy on earth. It is NOT a pollutant. Anti-carbon = anti human & anti life.
No comments:
Post a Comment