How much do you trust?

When I hear or read information from any source, credible or not, I believe what my heart tells me and what I already know to be true or false. I take into account where it is coming from and what their objectives or bias may be. I then derive a conclusion from all angles. And Yes my views have drastically changed over time, and I hope they will continue to get wiser as I age!

I have become very cynical over the past 60 years and will listen to just about anybody about anything BUT...I do not believe there are too many credible sources out there. We, the people, are being told what people of authority or power want us to know; nothing more or nothing less. Whether you are talking about social issues, war, pollution, racism, or whatever....what I see with my own two eyes, what I hear with my own two ears, etc. is the absolute truth and nothing else.

When I see it hit 94 in Texas in early May, I might take global warming to heart a bit more seriously. When I see kids and their Mom on street corner panhandling and looking like orphans, I have to wonder how an illegal immigrant can obtain food stamps on a day's notice but this poor lady can't!

When my granddaughter's high school is 'locked down' for 4 hours while they try to find the student that supposedly came to school armed; I have to wonder why this NEVER happened when God was still in our schools. Sorry, did not mean to go on and on. Good luck and God bless.

Well scientific advancements over the years have been growing and improving all the time. We are warned sooner for up coming storms, we are able to evacuate people from areas a lot sooner also. For example the hurricanes and tornadoes have a time window for people to seek cover. Where 10 years ago tornado warnings where not as accurate in warning victims in the path. They are able to study the atmosphere better. But with anything you hear it is your responsibility to make your own decision if it is credible by 1. scientific proof 2. your own research 3. research of more than one group and 4 common knowledge

But you have to educate yourself on the subjects in question.

I believe very little in the news, government, and such. News agencies gives reports their way to get ratings up, health orgizations go overboard a lot, most if not all politicians are selfish and liars. The government, well, rarely tell the full truth about anything. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

One nice thing about science is that trust isn't necessary. The whole premise of science is based on doubt and independent verification. You don't need to trust a particular scientist for the data to be credible.

Sure, some scientists fake their data. These cases are found out, and the fraud is exposed.

Science doesn't require trust. It requires a cycle of hypothesis and experiment.

I don't trust any individual or company to any degree...they are usually tied in with some personal agenda that will make them rich and me poorer....such as: Diane Fienstein when She was the head of a committee in the Senate and Her husband was in charge of a company that may have benefitted from Her decisions....!

there are no credible sources that really believe that we contribute or are even causing global warming..its happening at all."credible" sources are politicians with personal agendas.whnes the last time congress ever really looked out for you?

I dont believe any of that stuff anymore. I actually quit watching the news, even the weather. All anyone wants to do anymore is find something to complain about.

In my natural paranoa, Ive learned to question what anybody tells me. Having said that, even so, Im more inclined to listen to what my intuition tells me.

Good question, I don't like to read interpretations of data by people who are biased, I like to actually look at the raw data and come to my own conclusions. At that point I can see which side came to my conclusion and I agree with them.

I know most people will not read this post, they will just give me a thumbs down so here’s a summary of questions for the global warming crowd to think about, these have not been answered or even acknowledged by the global warming community.

- Why does CO2 always rise after temperature?

- Why is Mars warming?

- If temperature is raise by CO2 than why did global temperature drop between 1940 and 1970 while CO2 continued to rise?

- Why is the troposphere cooling if the greenhouse effect is the source of the earth’s warming?

- What about the numerous studies showing the sun is the cause of temperature change?

- Who funds global warming scientists?

- Why is a scientific consensus claimed?

- Why can you still see marks on rocks that mark the water level in the 1800’s?

- Why is the center of the artic and Antarctic ice shelves cooling?

- Why are the same glaciers retreating on one edge and expanding on the other?

The idea of man made global warming is false; it is based on false, misinterpreted, or biased evidence. When “An Inconvenient Truth” came out it was supposed to be the final word in proving global warming exists, but it did not. It was hosted solely by a politician who has no scientific training and presented only 2 graphs. According to these sources almost everything Al Gore claimed was either false or greatly exaggerated.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.h...

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/s...

For a movie that debunks global warming (hosted by actual scientists and presenting more than 2 graphs) look here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022...

This scientist says it will be a joke in 5 years:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.h...

One of the biggest claims by the global warming crowd is that there is a scientific consensus, this is a blatant and shameful lie. This claim is made to coerce you into belief because there is no opposition, right? Wrong, these 17,000+ scientists would disagree with the idea of a scientific consensus. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Come to think of it when is the last time you heard that there is a scientific consensus that actually cited numbers? There never has been, people will claim that 90% of scientists agree, this number is made up. Here are the real numbers:

http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKS...

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Sciencelette...

It seems there is a scientific consensus against global warming.

Some people will ask if I expect all the scientists who agree with global warming will come out one day and say we were joking, fooled you. No I don’t believe that, this will happen:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

Here’s 21 pages of disagreement:

http://www.climatechangedebate.org/documents/CCD_r...

Here’s some general information on my position.

http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#...

http://www.trac.org.au/cgi-bin/test?page=/myths/to...

http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Dont_Believe_Gl...

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_contro...

http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/TimBallJan2607handouts.pdf

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/Sc...

http://www.trac.org.au/myths/GreenhouseHysteria.pd...

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Carter/laying_te...

http://www.john-daly.com/

http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294

http://www.fcpp.org/main/media_file_wm.php?StreamI...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

http://www.bkdesign.ca/blog/reports/global-warming...

The central claim by the global warming crowd is that human generated CO2 is causing the current warming of the earth, this is false. An ice core sample like the one Al Gore showed actually shows the opposite, temperature rises the concentration of CO2.

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/atmosphere/IceCores1.gi...

The global warming crowd hardly ever shows this graph, they will only show graphs of the last 50 years or so, that is because if you take any particular 50 years it appears that CO2 is leading temperature, go ahead try it with the spike 250,000 years ago.

This is because a rise in temperature causes the sea to give up stored CO2:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-05/tei...

Here’s another ice core study that clearly shows a cyclical pattern in earth’s temperature, we are currently at a warming phase.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/nineli...

The main greenhouse gas is water vapor, which accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 only accounts for 3.6%. It makes up only .03% of our atmosphere. Of that only a about 6Gt of that comes from humans another 150Gt comes from animals.

This is the official NASA CO2 center, they have been studying atmospheric CO2 long before global warming was an issue, they conclude that CO2 is not the cause of warming.

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.html

If the earth was warming due to the greenhouse effect the troposphere would also be warming thus radiating the heat to the surface of the earth, but its not, the troposphere is actually cooling, only the earths surface is heating pointing to a more direct source of warming.

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/

And the claim that our current levels of CO2 are unprecedented are also false:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming...

If CO2 determines temperature why did the temperature drop between the years of 1940 and 1970 while the concentration of CO2 increased?

The sun is causing our warming along with interplay between the sea currents. For proof look at the fact that mars is also warming.

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/T...

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_sola...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07...

http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mg...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mg...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-03/UoC...

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/642-2...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar...

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=900

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/04080...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18397549/

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solc...

Time to dispel myths of global warming:

1) Last year was the hottest year on record.

False, a number of sources above address this and so does this one

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-329es.html

The world has actually cooled since 1998.

2) This warming is unprecedented.

False the medieval warm period was actually warmer. Grapes were grown in England, trees existed in place where there are now glaciers.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-329es.html

3) Glaciers are melting.

False, only portions are melting the cores are actually cooling. Some edges are decreasing while other expand.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=192

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2005/03/growin...

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.html

4) Sea levels will increase 20 feet flooding costal cities.

False this is a lie by Al gore, even the IPCC does not agree with this. The seas are increasing in some areas and decreasing in others.

http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/markhotd.h...

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2004/s110720...

http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Se...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Se...

5) This current idea is a first climate crisis.

False, in the 1970’s there was a scare of global cooling. A scientific consensus was claimed, evidence poured in, and now, global warming. Hundreds of studies came in supporting the idea but we now know this idea was wrong.

http://www.michaelkubacki.com/cooling.htm

6) Computer models predict further warming.

The computer models are unreliable, they all depend on dozens of assumptions, if any one is wrong the whole model is wrong. Also every model assumes human CO2 causes temperature increase so the outcome is always more warming. Computer models by scientists on the other side predict cooling.

7) The only scientists who disagree are paid by big oil.

This is false, most are paid by non partisan groups. This also begs a counter question, who pays global warming scientists? The answer big environmental companies who make millions off selling global warming materials, alternate fuels, green living products, etc.

Now the IPCC. Some will claim that the IPCC addressed solar impact and natural sources of CO2, they didn’t, see for yourself:

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index.htm

The IPCC is a political organization that knows what it will conclude before it starts its science. It has published a fake graph (the hockey stick graph) and later had to retract the report after THEY admitted it was wrong, yet they still use the graph. Scientists who disagreed with global warming were either excluded or censored.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archi...

http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Sept1004GlobalWarming...

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=6...

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/ipccreview.htm

If you actually read this post you should at least realize that global warming is not an absolute truth, it is the subject of active scientific debate.