Global Warming

There is a lot of controversy going on about global warming. Many people say man is causing it and many people say that that is not the case. The point of this post is to show both sides of the coin and determine which side holds more water.
So, because I don’t like to beat around the bush I’m going to come out and just say that I do not believe that global warming is caused by man. I drew this conclusion after carefully looking at all the arguments, for and against it. I am going to show all the data here and explain why I drew the conclusion that I did. So here we go…


Argument: Increased greenhouse gasses such as CO2 are holding in more of the suns heat and causing the temperature to rise. The increase of these gasses is caused by man.

The greenhouse effect is the foundation of the man caused global warming theory. It’s the idea that specific gases in our atmosphere hold in the heat from the sun which allows the world to be warmed. And when these gases increase, more of the suns heat is held in. There is a fundamental flaw in this theory however; the earth is not heated in this way.
The radiation from the sun does indeed penetrate the atmosphere, but it is absorbed by the earth. As the ground absorbs the heat, it heats up the air in direct contact to it causing that, now hot air to rise. This forces the cold air above it downward for the ground to heat and so on. You can actually see this effect on a hot summer day when you can see the waves of heat emanating from the ground. Although there is a small amount of the suns radiation that is absorbed by clouds and water vapor and then emitted as heat, this effect is minimal at best. Scientists for man caused global warming purport that because of the way that the greenhouse effect works the atmosphere should be warmest at a certain altitude. Through tests, they have been unable to show this temperature difference. They have instead found that, as we have known, the temperature gets colder the higher the altitude. The fact is that the earth doesn’t work at all like a. Most of the suns heat is absorbed by the earth.

Now let’s talk about greenhouse gases just for the sake of argument. The reality is that man only produces .28% of all total greenhouse gases that are expelled into the atmosphere. In realty, 95% of these gases are actually expelled by water vapor. As such a small influence on these gases, it seems impossible that we could have such a drastic effect on the environment.

So, if the greenhouse effect doesn’t cause changes in temperature, then what does? Well, scientists have found that there are cosmic rays that are constantly bombarding the earth. These cosmic rays combine with water vapor and become clouds. The clouds block the heat producing radiation that meets the ground, meaning that the temperature stays lower. So, the more clouds there are, the cooler the earth is.
As we continue to look at this we also find that the solar winds that are constantly being produced by the sun, and rushing past the earth, are also having an effect. The more solar winds there are, the fewer cosmic rays make it to the earth’s surface and the fewer clouds form to block heat producing radiation from the sun, thus making the earth’s temperature warmer. This phenomenon has been recorded and has been found to correlate to the temperature changes almost exactly. Therefore, with more actual data to support that the greenhouse effect does not have much of an effect at all, and that the sun’s solar winds that effect cosmic rays effecting cloud production has a more significant influence on the earths temperature, it is only logical to conclude that the current warming trend is not caused by man, but instead by the sun and its natural effect on our weather.

I just want to make one very important point about this whole issue. I believe that it is important for us as human beings to take care of the environment (the earth) in which we live. But what I do not condone is the scare tactics used by others in order to force people to accept their opinions, thereby controlling them. Science is not about consensus; it is about being able to prove something consistently with reliable data. We have no reliable, factual data to show that man caused global warming is, or ever will actually be happening. Remember that there was a time when scientists all came to a consensus that the earth was flat. We all know how that turned out.
The unfortunate truth is that the U.S government alone spends upwards of $3 Billion a year on energy technologies that include those aimed at preventing man caused global warming. The jobs that this money creates are many, and to just say that man caused global warming isn’t real, then all those people are out of a job.

So, there it is. I know that what I have just said here is basically against what most media outlets are saying is “not a debated issue anymore,” but the problem is that it is a debated. I have included a video I found on Google Videos called the Great Global Warming Swindle along with my references and links that will more clearly explain the issues that I have talked about here. Please visit my links, I have links to places that agree, disagree and are neutral with the global warming debate, so please visit the links and do research on the subject. Don’t take my word for it, check it out for yourselves.

Refernces and Link

• http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
• http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
• http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
• http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF8/817.html
• http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192544,00.html
• http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
• http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_contrib.html
• http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm
• http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html
• http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/medieval_warm_period.html

Intelligent Design

So, the first issue that I'm going to tackle here is Intelligent Design. So, here we go...

The first thing that I will say is that yes, I am a Christian and yes I do believe that God created the earth and everything in it. This, however, does stop me from taking all evidence into account so if that fact stops you from reading this then I hope it's because you already have all of the evidence on both sides.
So lets start with the bottom line on Intelligent Design:

1. The flagellum motor is an example of a complex organism that has a practically impossible chance of forming spontaneously.
2. The basic building block of life, DNA, has no known origin.
3. There is no actual evidence of macro evolution ever actually happening.

OK, so now lets address each item one at a time.

1. Now the first thing to point out is that even Charles Darwin knew that his theories were just that, theories. He stated in Chapter 6 of "The Origin of Species" that,"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." The bacterial flagellum shows just that complexity that Darwin himself said would make his theory break down. Now granted, Darwin was talking specifically about organs in this passage, but I believe that this statement if true for organs, is still true for all other parts of the body.

Aside from Darwin, lets look at some more scientific evidences. I am going to talk about the mathematics behind Evolution, but before I do that it's important that we discuss the cell and how it works. The building block of life is of course, DNA. Now, no evolutionary scientist can tell you definitely where DNA came from initially because they don't know. I'll go into more detail on this later. Next are amino acids, which are the building blocks for proteins which are what make every element of cells. Now, what happens is that the DNA tells how, and in what order, the amino acids need to be lined up in order to be molded to the correct shape for the specific protein needed in order to piece together each part of the cell. Each protein needs to have specific amino acids, organized in a specific way, in order to become part of a cell.

Now lets talk about the mathematics of this. A chemist calculated exactly what the odds are that just one protein could be created spontaneously without DNA to guide it. "He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 against even a small protein forming by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (an age 10 to 20 times greater than the supposed age of the Earth)." An important note is that, "mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th have a zero probability of ever happening."

2. I talked about this a little in the first point, but I will go into it in more detail here. Most evolutionary scientists can give an explanation of where all the elements of the cell came from(primordial soup), but there is no real evidence of where DNA originated. This is all circumstantial in the overall debate, but it's very good to note.

3. There are two types of evolution, Micro evolution and Macro evolution. Macro evolution is the kind of evolution where something evolves into something completely different. Micro evolution is when something evolves to be different, but still the same class and species. Because we have no real proof of Macro evolution ever actually happening, and so much evidence to show that things have a practically impossible chance to evolve in the first place, you can say that not only is Macro evolution unprovable, it's almost impossible. Many scientists will say that we will never see Macro evolution happen and just because we don't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. This sounds a lot like something a religious person might say, and based on the actual evidence, I tend to disagree with that argument for Macro evolution.

So, those are some major points on Intelligent Design and the science that behind it. I think that if you look at it purely scientifically you can see that Intelligent Design is very scientific and easily holds water as a scientific answer to the origin of life, and in my opinion, is a better explanation that evolution.

There is another belief that God used evolution in order to create life. Dr. Kent Hovind talks about that in his series about Creationism and I agree with his assessment. I'm not going to go into it here as I have done less research into it, and Dr. Hovind is much more knowledgable on the subject than I.

I hope you found my information here eye opening, or if nothing else informing on one level or another and encourage you to continue to look for more information on the topic.

Thanks for reading!

- Rich Inman

References and Links

• http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/011a.html
• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/dna/
• http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html
• http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
• http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
• http://www.drdino.com/
• http://www.illustramedia.com/wdtelinfo.htm

The Beginning

Hi there everyone! I have started this blog to address issues that I have done research on so that I can discover the objective truth. Through all of my research my main goal is to remain un-biased about the outcome, so all of you who are reading my posts can rest assured that I will do my best to present my opinion based on the findings that I have from both sides of any issue. So, enjoy!

- Rich Inman