Not that my birthday is coming up or anything, but just in case you are bored or just want to send me a letter or anything (When you are stuck here for so long the mail is the only thing you look forward to. Needless to say I don't get mail often.) Anyway my address is Box 98 Wilson Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306. So today was another regular day. Went to Business math and learned about derivatives. Went to walking and walked. Ate in between classes. Hall Council before bed. Also special announcement for the day: "I am officially a 4-H Lamb Club Project Leader!" I will post more as the information comes to me. Today though I had astronomy and he finally had something to say that somewhat sparked my attention:
Austin Hostetter asked me what I thought about Global Warming this past spring and I responded saying "Sure we have seen some differences with our climate, but I believe that before we can say that there is Global Warming we have to define what it means." Currently we are going off the idea that a rise in Carbon Dioxide is causing us to lose our ozone and making the temperature rise. I believe that we have jumped to conclusion too quickly and my professor also brought up interesting points in agreement with me. First we pose the question that "Is Carbon Dioxide making it warmer or is the warmer temperature making more Carbon Dioxide?" When we look over the data there is no way to scientifically prove the information. They do correspond with eachother so a theory was created to follow what a committee interpretted. I will go into further detail on that decision later, but first I think we have to go to the root of where we first heard the information on the global scale:
An Inconvenient Truth.
It hit the world by storm! Al Gore talking about the crisis of Global Warming. This is when we all got worried and started to try to change all of our lives because as my sub for IFW said "The ozone is depleting and when you go out there in a matter of minutes you could get burned or get cancer!" We didn't even read between the lines and do research for ourselves, it was time for a war! Stop collaborate and listen! First off lets look at the book cover that I have posted above. It includes two words that made this a big deal and probably should have been looked at more closly before publishing. Truth and crisis. If there is anything that was made clear throughout history it was the idea of mixing religion and science. It all began with Gallileo and now Al Gore made this idea a truth? Should this be allowed? I do not think so one bit and as science has become it is all theory that can be proven wrong. Therefore the idea of Truth in global warming needs erased from the picture. Second we look at the crisis. By dictionary definition it is 1. a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined; turning point. 2. a condition of instability or danger, as in social, economic, political, or international affairs, leading to a decisive change. 3. a dramatic emotional or circumstantial upheaval in a person's life. Who was the person that decided that this was a crisis? We don't have enough facts to prove that and so far the scientific tests have not proven that tomorrow anyone that walks outside is going to die from the sun's radiation. So now the title of the book been refaced and I believe we could call it "The Inconvenient Theory: The Slight Possibility of Global Warming." So where do I go with this theory from here? Well I think you have to head straight into the test and let's just look at a graph that takes a two page spread in the book. The graph is displaying the increase of Carbon Dioxide particles from 1956 to 2006. You look at the graph and you become scared. It is increasing so rapidly that humans could be swipped off the planet tomorrow. No it is not! Look at the graph again. It is only showing you from 310 to 380. I have never looked at a graph that starts at 310. They usually start at zero on the statistical side of the graph when doing research, so let's look at it like it should look like on mathematical terms. A graph starting at 0 and going to 380.
Now you look at that graph and the slope is not that great anymore and you are not as worried. Did you not hear what Al Gore said? This is a crisis or is it? Remember that the second graph is exactly the same as the first one just with a point that you can reference to zero. Freedom of manipulation should be in the constitution because now that you have seen that graph you are starting to realize what I am saying and have believed all along. Well I have something even more special for you. Science is now able to figure out the number of particles in the atmosphere. Lets look at the graph from 0 to 5000 particles.
Now your mind should be wrapped around what is actually out there according to the data of so called "Global Warming." It is hard to believe that some how we didn't look at the fine print and look for the real solution before the whole world started worrying. Fred Singer of the University of Virginia talks about global warming with a few thoughts: "The widely touted "consensus" of 2,500 scientists on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications. The AP reported that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report's summary for policy makers. Only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the "consensus statement" on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say. Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic. As every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. What about the fact that every major greenhouse computer model shows a large temperature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models. It involves comparing the observed pattern of warming with the pattern predicted for different latitudes and altitudes. Computer models predict greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface, peaking at about six miles above the Earth's surface. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the opposite: a slight decrease over the equator. The real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas." Well I hope that if I haven't changed your mind I have at least got you thinking about Global Warming. That is all I have. Stay Classy Nappanee/Muncie!
Europe in the Morning - *Helsinki* Is it not always dawn in Helsinki in the wintertime? The pale, transparent sky and the slanting sunlight give it that luster of morning at most ...