Global warming has been quite the controversial topic. People have even gone so far as to wonder whether they should believe in global warming or not based on their political or religious views. However, our views on global warming–whether we're for or against the acceptance of it as fact–shouldn't be based from our views on how the government should (or shouldn't) run the country, or what we hold spiritual faith in. Many people simple accept global warming as true or false simply because it is what other influential individuals say they believe (although many times, actions show otherwise). Rather, we should learn to evaluate things based on factual evidence.
It's interesting how we hear about events such as which celebrities are getting married or divorced, what the newest movie is about and why it is so awesome, or how certain cars are flawed, yet we don't hear anything about news that shows itself contrary to views widely expressed by others, in the name of "political correctness." As Adam Hoy (reporter) put it, "the fact that information was leaked…and then suppressed by the media, shows where they're true loyalties lie." Sometimes, it's necessary to be our own reporter and search for the truth, as it doesn't always come to us.
Do I believe in global warming? I don't, but let me show you why I don't, then you make the decision for yourself.
In November 2009, one of the leading global warming advocacy centers in the UK was hacked into, private emails were made public, and these documents were confirmed authentic by the director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones. One of the incriminating emails comes directly from Dr. Jones himself. Here is a copy of the message:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
What is seen here? Well, Dr. Jones talks about a "method" (Mike's Nature trick) where he adds the "real temperatures to each series" for the last 20 years to "hide the decline." Decline in what, you may ask? What else besides the fact that global warming isn't actually increasing–it's decreasing! The email points to the fact that man-made global warming is being made bigger than it actually is. Jones said he couldn't remember the context of "hide the decline" but that the process was a way to fill gaps rather than mislead. The thing is, "trick" usually isn't the word often used to identify a scientific process. Rather, the word is usually intended to mean…well…a trick (a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive)!
That's not all: in another email from Tom Wigley to Dr. Jones, the process of how to delete inconvenient data is discussed in order to emphasize their own ideas. Another email between quite a few scientists shows that they can't even find evidence for global warming:
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
[message clipped, talked about January being very cold, 4 inches of snow, new record low for that time]
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
Here they are, saying that they can't account for the lack of global warming. Why can't they? The obvious answer is that you can't account for what doesn't exist. Makes enough sense, doesn't it?
People like Al Gore claim to be concerned about global warming, so what do they do? Well, Al Gore went and paid money to global warming institutes to "counteract" the effects of his carbon dioxide output.
So what's the real motive behind the global warming scheme? Power? Possibly. Whatever the motivation, evidential fact should be how we make our decision. Not politics. Not religion. Not political correctness. Fact. Yes, I am sure evidence exists that supports the theory of global warming. But seeing as that "evidence" has been manipulated with "tricks" and that the scientists even admitted that the warming "can't be accounted for," it leads me to wonder…what really is true?
We live in a relative society. Not that our world is relative–the world hasn't changed. What has changed is the people. People believe what feels best for them, or what brings the most pleasure for them, not what is absolutely true. As a debater once put it, "ideas don't have action." In order for truth to be uncovered, it has to be defended. Truth is constantly under attack. Truth is always true, through any circumstance, and it is our duty to defend the freedom of knowing that truth. In order for our nation to truly maintain its founding principles of freedom, we have to be free to know the truth. If our media suppresses that truth, it is our duty to bring it to light. We must take a stand for truth, for freedom, for the things our nation was founded on–principles that our Lord commands us to follow and uphold. If we want to stay strong, we the people must be strong, must be free and not allow others to control our knowledge and perception of reality.
God bless America,