Global Warming Myth

homophile made spheric heating system does not exist. secern suggests that carbon levels argon not abnormally high and that the ice caps atomic number 18 not melting away. There ar many reputable scientists who question this system we call globose 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 in that respect 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. Dr. Seitz is a physicist who served as the president of the National Academy of scientific discipline during the 1960s 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, 200 7, p1. ) Dr. Seitz known as the Grandaddy of global warming skeptics (Buisness week, June 24. was an apponent of temper change saying that the science behind global warming was likewise inconclusive and certainly didnt 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 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 besides wrote that 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 have laid thei r reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to beit 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 neer 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 operating theatre Petition. The Oregon Petition states We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other connatural 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 mankind. There is no con vincing scientific evidence that human race release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earths atmosphere and disruption of the Earths 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 PhDs. 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 doubting about global warming 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 get rid of and drifting away. National Public Radio published a story on its website claiming 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, folk 19, 2012) Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the ice has been above the 33 year fairish 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 NASAs top satellite for detect and measuring the earths ice and masses. 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 unvaried from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar al judgment of convictiontry. (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 study by NASA suggests that the continent once was green and full of vegitation. The frozen continent of Antarctica which some believe is melting away imputable 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 400 to 600 parts per million(ppm) (NASA. gov, June 17, 2012,p. 2) Carbon levels today are at 393ppm, the highest they have been in the recent 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 need s to be answered who was driving in Antarctica 16 million years ago? The answer is nobody. Global warming is being utilise as a tool generate fortunes for the government and take our liberty away.