(the antitheses of global warming)
Thank you for visiting my website. Over fifteen years ago I became very interested in the theory of man made global warming. While attending a convention in California I awoke one morning to the sound of the clock radio next to my bed. A scientist was speaking about climate change, and he asked some very interesting questions. It was Patrick Michael, at that time the Virginia State climatologist and a professor with the University of Virginia. He said some very interesting things about CO2 that were contrary to what one normally heard.
*the world was a bit more warm, but it was not any warmer than in the past. It wasn't that high temperatures were any higher than they used to be, but the world was a bit less cold. The warming was on the low side of temperature measurement, not the high side. Summers were not generally any hotter, but the winters were not as cold as they used to be.
*according to the man made global warming theory the upper atmosphere and ocean surface temperatures were supposed to be getting warmer but they are not. Weather balloons have been used for decades and they show no increase in upper atmospheric temperatures.
*the land based temperature sensors were showing some higher temperatures, but only because of the growth of urban areas around the sensors. Urban heat islands absorb heat unlike rural areas. Rural areas were not experiencing the warming that urban areas were.
*It was not true that the earth was experiencing more flooding than in the past (the global warming theory states that warming temperatures would cause more rain and thus more storms and flooding) . There was a bit more rain, a tenth of an inch more, but this merely caused a bit less drought but certainly not more storms or flooding.
*CO2 causes more rapid plant growth and higher crop yields. Rising CO2 levels were greening the planet and helping to feed a growing world population.
All of this was contrary to what the headlines were saying and I wanted to learn more. I dove into the issue.
This Website became active on September 18, 2008. When I visited Capitol Hill to lobby some of my local Congressional Representatives on trade issues they mentioned the carbon cap and trade bill they wanted to pass next year. Rep. Steny Hoyer's legislative chief told us a carbon tax would "raise hundreds of billions of dollars every year". I was startled. If climate change is not the result of mankind's emission of CO2, and our economy is rocked by an additional cost from carbon cap and trade or other such programs, it could be disastrous to the nation. Thus, the birth of this website.
When I participated in a NASA media conference call on Sept 22, 2008, I learned that NASA was announcing the findings from the satellite Ulysses after its 18 year voyage studying the Sun. The Ulysses passed the Sun three times. The first pass was during a solar minimum (a period of lower activity). The second pass of the Sun was during a solar maximum and the third pass during a less active period similar to the first pass (solar cycle 23). They noticed large differences between the two minimums, that on the third pass the Sun was emitting much less energy than the first pass, and the lowest amount of solar energy ever recorded (since the beginning of modern measurement with the advent of the space program). This only confirms my suspicion that the Sun is the primary driver of the world's temperatures and not mankind. This explains the warming of the 1980's and 1990's and for the last sixteen years when global temperatures have not been increasing.
I salute anyone who has read this statement, for certainly you are one of the pioneers. Talk with others about what you have read here. If you doubt any of the information found on this website, I would encourage you to explore the issue further using Google or other search engines. It might just might open your eyes.
This website has no sponsors or financial supporters, it is entirely the creating of myself. While I question that the source of the earth's warming is from man, I am for reducing our reliance on foreign sources of energy, the development of renewable energy (the ones that make sense), and for better fuel economy from the vehicles we drive. I care deeply about our planet but also our country. The one thing I do not believe, from my research, is that the reduction of CO2 emissions will have much impact on earth's climate. Spending vast sums on the control of CO2 could damage our economy, and perhaps even reduce our freedom, and with little impact on temperature. This would be a tragic mistake, with many unintended (or perhaps intended by some) negative consequences.