In this class, we talk a lot about "climate change" (that's only the name because "global warming" was no longer helping their cause) and the effects it will have on the Earth in such a small span of time. I have thought a lot about this since Al Gore, a vice president, not scientist, came out with "An Inconvenient Truth." I can think critically of things and the idea just didn't make sense. It's not that I don't believe that our temperatures are warmer, I do. I just don't believe the malarky they spew to us that every breath we take is destroying the Earth. That is how plants breathe. They take in CO2 and release O2. We couldn't live without them, they can't live without us. 6CO2 + 6 H2O ---> C6H12O6 + 6O2... Basic biology. Any high school graduate knows that. Now, scientists (who once fell for the hype) are coming out against the Cap & Trade (as everyone should because the government has no constitutional right to pass a bill like that) and other "climate protection bills" and telling the truth. In an article published 10/07/2009, Leighton Steward announced his plan to go to Washington to try to defeat any climate bill because it is not necessary. In fact, according to Steward, a bill could be harmful to the Earth. Finally, someone is putting aside their fear to speak out and actually telling the truth (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming.html).
Another idea that always puzzled me (since I was raised in a "Christian" household) is that these scientists who were supporting global warming, sorry, climate change, are the same scientists who believed that the Earth was going to become a giant fireball and we would all die, are the same people who have believed for decades that the Earth goes through cycles. We have extremely cold periods, and extremely hot periods. We came out of an ice age, for goodness sake. How did we come out of that ice age? Probably by warming the Earth more than 2*C... The idea that we once warmed and cooled, without humans polluting like they do, and some died, but that is the idea of survival of the fittest. Those who could adapt, did. The same stands true today, those who can adapt to the changing climate will survive, those who can't, won't. Its pretty simple biology.
Maybe the problem is that these Glob.... Sorry, Climate Change scientists never took biology, because they seem to be missing some of the basic facts. Even without any biology type class, I know these things, why don't they?! Erasing Carbon means erasing every living thing on this Earth. Humans, plants, animals, etc are all carbon-based organisms. How can we cut out carbon? According to politicians, we can cut carbon by giving more money to Al Gore and GE so that they can pick a tree and put your name on it. That is what Carbon offsets are, already planted trees that they just stick your name on if you purchase one of their credits. (http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/THE_VINDICATION_OF_CARBON.pdf).
Another article, posted 09/16/2009, talks about the possibility of a GLOBAL COOLING trend. According to recent models, the temperatures will begin to steady, and following that we will see temperatures drop. This is especially asserted by Marco Tedesco and Andrew J. Monaghan (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039186.shtml). They have found that the antarctic snowmelt is at a 30-year low (I bet it would be longer but we can never know... we didn't have satellite and stuff more than 30-years ago).
Another idea that always puzzled me (since I was raised in a "Christian" household) is that these scientists who were supporting global warming, sorry, climate change, are the same scientists who believed that the Earth was going to become a giant fireball and we would all die, are the same people who have believed for decades that the Earth goes through cycles. We have extremely cold periods, and extremely hot periods. We came out of an ice age, for goodness sake. How did we come out of that ice age? Probably by warming the Earth more than 2*C... The idea that we once warmed and cooled, without humans polluting like they do, and some died, but that is the idea of survival of the fittest. Those who could adapt, did. The same stands true today, those who can adapt to the changing climate will survive, those who can't, won't. Its pretty simple biology.
Maybe the problem is that these Glob.... Sorry, Climate Change scientists never took biology, because they seem to be missing some of the basic facts. Even without any biology type class, I know these things, why don't they?! Erasing Carbon means erasing every living thing on this Earth. Humans, plants, animals, etc are all carbon-based organisms. How can we cut out carbon? According to politicians, we can cut carbon by giving more money to Al Gore and GE so that they can pick a tree and put your name on it. That is what Carbon offsets are, already planted trees that they just stick your name on if you purchase one of their credits. (http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/THE_VINDICATION_OF_CARBON.pdf).
Another article, posted 09/16/2009, talks about the possibility of a GLOBAL COOLING trend. According to recent models, the temperatures will begin to steady, and following that we will see temperatures drop. This is especially asserted by Marco Tedesco and Andrew J. Monaghan (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039186.shtml). They have found that the antarctic snowmelt is at a 30-year low (I bet it would be longer but we can never know... we didn't have satellite and stuff more than 30-years ago).

(Citation for picture above http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/ OR http://www.climate-skeptic.com/)
What will Gore and his posse do if the temperatures drop steadily for a decade?! Do we then blame Carbon, saying that it causes the temperatures to decrease, or do we blame Oxygen or Nitrogen (which, in case people don't know, are also essential for life)... I wouldn't put it past him. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/09/an_inconvenient_truth_about_gl.html).
Throughout college, we are told to think critically of everything we hear, and upon thinking critically, I have determined that University Colloquium is a total waste of my time, and I will finish it, just to get the credits. I have determined that Florida Gulf Coast University is trying to indoctrinate its students (since they are impressionable and have no other sources of information) to believe that they MUST change the world. The only way to eliminate Carbon would be to kill everyone and everything. To stop wearing clothes, eating anything, and just plain wipe the Earth clean. Now, people say that what I'm thinking sounds crazy... But to me, the only solution to this so-called problem is crazy!
I am sick of college classes being one sided, especially classes that are required. If this class were a choice (most students wouldn't take it) it would be one thing. But the school has to do something to make up for building on land that wasn't "ecologically safe" to build on. So their solution is to indoctrinate their students, and make them pay $500 to be indoctrinated. I find that to be a little ridiculous.
After today's lecture, I decided to look up when exactly correlation can mean causation (since I asked and my question was pushed aside). Well, I found an answer from a professor at East Carolina University. He said when "...the data have been gathered by experimental means and confounds have been eliminated, correlation does imply causation." My issue with that is that the data weren't gathered by experimental means, they were taken solely on the basis that we think we know when the information is from. Another issue is that confounds have not been eliminated. We don't know precisely when this extracted data are from. It is scientifically impossible; also, how can we be 100% positive that nothing has effected the air being extracted from the ice. Thinking critically, correlation, in this case, does not prove causation. (http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/StatHelp/Correlation-Causation.htm)
Yet another arguement for Climate Change is that there is a consensus among scientists. Well, thinking back in time. There have been PLENTY of times when the consensus was wrong. Almost all scientists once thought the Earth was flat... WRONG. Scientists once thought the sun revolved around the Earth... WRONG. Scientists once thought that illness was caused by possession by demons... WRONG. After that was the humoral theory... WRONG. Body-Mind Dualism, anatomical theory, cellular theory, germ theory... ALL WRONG. What about Pluto?! Continental drift... Wrong. I could probably go on for a VERY long time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories, among thoughts in my brain and my text book "Health Psychology" by: Richard O. Straub (2007)). In a 2004 study by Dennis Bray, it was found that there truly was no consensus. Of 372 Climate scientists, the results showed that a majority doesn't agree with the statement that "climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes." The results are as follows:
Frequencies:
1- strongly agree- 50 (9.4% of valid responses)
2- 134 (25.3% of valid responses)
3- 112 (21.1% of valid responses)
4- 75 (14.2% of valid responses)
5- 45 (8.5% of valid responses)
6- 60 (10.8% valid responses)
7- strongly disagree- 54 (9.7% of valid responses)
The mean score was 3.62, with a standard deviation of 1.84. That means that they don't totally agree with what is being taught by the so-called consensus http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Bray.htm).
















