What do you think...

When you look at the dots above, do you see a pattern emerge? Is it the first 10 dots in a pattern, and the pattern beginning to repeat with the last 4 dots? Could the pattern be the first 13 dots, and begin repeating with the last dot? Or could it be a pattern in itself from beginning to end? Or could it even be the tail end of a larger pattern?

What do you think after looking at the picture with more dots added in? Appears to be the tail end of a larger pattern. And now there's no telling whether the first two dots are the end of a pattern, and the rest of the dots on screen are the repeat, or what. And imagine if this thing was more than three lines, more like 639333333 lines.

"What the heck is this blog about?" I know. Well, here's the deal. I'm trying to understand how people buy into this whole "global warming" stuff, based off of only a couple hundred years of data. Now before you go all whirling dervish on me, please let me say that I think humans are supposed to be good stewards of the planet that God has created for us. I can't stand littering. I cringe inside when I see all the new developments going up here in Camden County, where they just bulldoze the place flat, not leaving a single tree for shade or beauty or oxygen. I think we are in pretty poor shape when it comes to taking care of the earth. I'm glad more attention and focus is on it, but I don't think that creating hysteria out of partial data is the way to do it. And people are fighting so hard to keep this stuff in the news. This morning, it was "Leading Climatologist reverses view on the relationship between global warming and hurricanes." Guy is a scientist at MIT. Smart guy, right? Right. So why is he buying into this global warming thing?

There is always the chance that I'm just totally missing the proverbial boat. But I really do try to look at the facts on something before I make a definite decision. I'm talking facts now, not the interpretation of the data. Recorded numbers and information, no problem. Someone telling me what they think the numbers mean, okay, but that's your opinion. Someone passing laws, trying to get people fired from their jobs, etc. based on what they say the numbers mean, without being able to prove it by the scientific method (which amounts to a theory), I have a big problem with.

Here are some questions I've got, and some observations I've made since this push started a year or so ago:

• How do you know it's warming, in the sense of an uncontrollable rise in mean temperatures all over the globe, when you've only been measuring data for such a small amount of time? Back to the dots at the top of the post - can you really tell if we're at the end of a warming wave and getting ready to start getting cooler, or can you prove that we're on a steady uphill climb with no end in sight? An accurate thermometer wasn't even invented until Mr. Farenheight in the early 1700s. So the last 300 years is really all that we could possibly have reliable data on, for the sake of trending, and at that time there weren't all the climate agencies like we have in modern times to record all the data. We've only been keeping seriods records for some 150 years.You could make some predicitons based off of that if the earth had only been around 500 years, but "scientists" (there come the quotes again) have once again changed their minds based on their interpretation of data collected from telescopes, and the general consensus of the secular scientific community seems to be that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. Yet they're looking at just the tip of the tail, and creating mass hysteria.
• How can you prove that all this CO2 is turning up the dial on the universal oven, crisping all out polar bears and making slushies of our glaciers? Weren't the icecaps (made of frozen carbon dioxide) on Mars melting over the last several years, too? Have they had an Industrial Revolution on the red planet and are now cranking out CO2 as fast as we earthlings are? Or could the two similar results be caused by the same thing, - maybe the increased solar activity? Sun = hot.
• I know that in my community, we have bulldozed acres of shade giving trees and laid acres of heat holding asphalt. Wonder why your neighborhood (this is more "community warming" than global ) feels so hot? How many trees are in your yard? I can go 5 miles down the road to my mother's house, and the breeze over the lake, plus the shade of the hundred-year-old oaks amounts to a difference in temperature of probably a good 5 degrees from my house.

There are many more things that have come up, such as Chicago having the coldest winter on record, and all those meetings on Global Warming initiatives being cancelled because of snowstorms. Article today called "Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say" By Jim Efstathiou Jr. A research scientist says "If we don't experience warming over the next 10 years, it doesn't mean that greenhouse-gas warming is not with us. There can be natural fluctuations that may mask climate change in the short term." Another says "Natural variations over the next 10 years might be heading in the cold direction, but if you run the model long enough, eventually global warming will win." One more person says that "The world will become at least 2.5 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100, compared with the pre-industrial period." How often do weathermen accurately predict tomorrow's weather? Ever looked at the 10-day forecast? Is it ever on the money? Look. I work with a group of people whose job it is to produce forecasts. Not weather forecasts, but production forecasts based off of years and years of accumulated data. There are computer systems that produce the results after the data is fed into them, etc. These people get thrilled and give high fives when their predictions from a year ago turn out to be within 10% of the actual amount. But here this guy is going to predict a mean rise in temperature from 92 years out? He doesn't even care, because he'll be dead and the legislation will all have been passed by the time his prediction is proven true or false.

How about the "farm under the sand" in Greenland? Look it up. Farm buried beneath 20+ feet of permafrost for 500 years. So at one time, Greenland was MUCH warmer than it is now. Right now it's about 85 percent covered by a sheet of ice. If we're colder now than we were 500 years ago, how can a warming spell (which isn't happening anyways) be the "end of humanity," as Al Gore spells it? Friggin' short sighted idiots.