The "Facts" of Global Warming

Ok, so it’s been forever since I got riled up enough to bother writing another rant that we politely call a blog. My apologies. College got this thing started, and it takes college to keep it rolling. Most of the frustration I experienced last semester was due to people’s bad grammar and poor spelling, so other than listing yet another reason to homeschool,I had nothing to write about. However, this semester I am taking  a Geography class and I would like to do a Math/Science Unit study (if you don’t know what that means ask the nearest homeschooler lol) on the facts of Global Warming…um I mean Climate Change. To help with the calculations I am going to do you need to remember PEMDAS- or Please Excuse My Derision And Sarcasm.

One more thing: to get the right mood for this blog, it is imperative that you read it aloud, and whenever you see the word “Earth”, as in “Earth’s oceans”, or “Earth’s atmosphere”, stop for a moment, compose yourself, and then reverently say “Eeaarrtthhh” After all, as you’ll note by the capital letter and personification, Earth is now and entity and apparently a god. Got it? Good.

OK, here we go. The Facts of Global Warming, condensed from sections from four chapters of my Geography book, supplemented with calculations from a math assignment.

1.     The Ozone Layer is Getting Thinner.

 Ozone, typically found in a layer of the Troposphere, the lowest layer of Earth’s Atmosphere, helps reduce the amount of UV radiation reaching Earth. Ozone, which is a compound of three Oxygen atoms, breaks into one oxygen atom and a molecule of diatomic (two atom) oxygen (the stuff we breathe) when exposed to the energy of radiation. The molecules then rejoin to form ozone again and the process continues as one big cycle.

However, due to man’s interference, the ozone layer is thinning. Humans have released Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) into Earth’s atmosphere. When exposed to the energy of UV radiation, the CFC’s break apart, as does the ozone, freeing a carbon atom and the oxygen atom. The Carbon atom then joins the diatomic oxygen molecule to form carbon dioxide (CO2) which must be broken apart by UV radiation before the Ozone molecule can be formed to absorb UV radiation by being split into Oxygen and O2.

So somehow, since the presence of CFC’S in Earth’s atmosphere creates another molecule and therefore requires more UV energy to break apart, we have a surplus of radiation hitting Earth. Radiation levels in WV, on a scale from 1-11, with 11 being worst, are ranked at 8. To protect yourself you should wear a hat, sunglasses, SPF 15 or greater sunscreen, and avoid direct sunlight between the hours of 10 am and 4 pm.

2. The Greenhouse Effect

The gases of Earth’s atmosphere act like a giant greenhouse, trapping heat to keep Earth from turning into a frozen mass overnight. However, “Since the industrial era began in the mid 1700’s, human activities have increased the concentrations of greenhouse gases-such as carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone , and chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere.” (McKnight’s  Physical Geography: A Landscape Appreciation, 10^th edition, page 92-93. Emphasis added)

Since we’re making so much Ozone (the compound that is being depleted from the atmosphere making Earth warmer because of unfiltered Radiation) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2, the stuff we exhale), Earth is getting warmer.

3. The Earth’s Temperature is Rising

Scientists have averaged the temperatures from the past century, and concluded that the Earth is growing warmer. That’s exactly right, the people who believe Earth is billions of years old and the 5 or 6 thousand years of human history would look like a millimeter compared to a football field of “prehistoric time” have looked back a whole century to come to this conclusion. Using this logic, I have averaged the temperatures of this week and have concluded that no matter what that ignorant ground hog said, Spring will never come.

Anyways, back to the rising temperatures, when Scientists looked back into history, they couldn’t find exact temperatures for every year, so they looked at ice cores and tree rings and estimated the temperatures for each year...of course, this leaves some room for error. Using this method they have determined Earth’s temperature has risen a whole …drumroll please… 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s right folks, it is 1.3 degrees warmer today than it was 100 years ago.

4. The Ice Caps are Going to Melt and We are All Going to Die…or at least our Children are…or maybe Grandchildren…Great Grandchildren?

The average high temperature in January-the peak of Summer in Antarctica- is -18 degrees Fahrenheit.( http://traveltips.usatoday.com/average-temperature-antarctica-13726.html)Let’s assume all the ice melts the moment the temperature hits 32 degrees Fahrenheit (which anyone who’s lived through a snow storm will tell you it won’t. Water takes longer to heat than air and therefore even though the air is 32 degrees, the ice is still much colder.). If the temperature rises 2 degrees Fahrenheit every century, how long will it take before it raises the 50 degrees (32--18) necessary for the ice to melt?

The average 3^rd grader should be able to tell me it would take 50 x 100=5000 years.

5. What Should We Do?

The following is taken from my Math text book , Jeffery Bennett and William Briggs’ Using and Understanding Mathematics, A Quantitative Approach, 5^th edition. It is Question 6 of the Chapter Two ‘Critical Thinking’ activity, found on page 80.

“Global warming is expected to cause melting of the polar ice sheets, but scientists cannot predict how fast the ice will melt. Given this uncertainty how should the danger of polar melting be dealt with in political discussions of global warming?”

Here is my answer:

If the sea level remains the same (since the water will not just stack up on top of itself but will overflow the land) at 3.73km (3730 meters http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml ), with  an influx of (35 million cubic km+3.5million cubic km)=38.5million cubic km of water, the surface area of the world ocean would increase by (38.5millioncubic Km/3.73km)= 10.3 million square km, about one third of its current area.

In exchange for this we would  have the continent of Antarctica, which is 14 million square km of land (some of which would be lost to the rising water, of course) plus the area of Greenland now covered in ice (410450 square km http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greenland/surface-area-sq-km-wb-data.html )a net gain of  over 4 million square km. In addition the melting of the ice in the Arctic Ocean would allow it to hold 1/6 more water than it currently does.

            The heat increase needed to melt the ice would also increase the rate of evaporation, meaning there would be more rain, so perhaps desert areas would become livable again. Though the tropics would become unbearably hot, the northern and southern extremes would become more temperate, leaving a large portion of the world with a tropical climate. This would allow for longer growing seasons, which in combination with the increase in rainfall would mean more food.

            This taken into account, if global warming is a fact and the weather we are experiencing is not simply part of a large pattern, any politician who tries to bring about legislation to prevent global warming should be tried for treason against the world, as the melting of the ice caps could greatly benefit us.

So even if I am wrong, and the sky is falling,or global warming is possible, why worry?

The Author of the Theory of Relativity (and no, I don't mean Einstein)

At the turn of the last century, a philosophy came into vogue in American colleges, which simply stated that there were no absolutes-everything was relative. This idea of Relativism, also titled ‘Situation Ethics’ has developed a strong foothold in American thought over the past century. It is not uncommon to hear people referring to following their own ‘moral compass’ or to see people behaving in ways that go against God’s rules and not seeing their actions as wrong.

As with any false philosophy, Relativism gained ground by eroding the truth in small steps.  An early example would be the theory of Evolution, which tore down an absolute-only God can give life- and replaced it with a variable-somehow (and no one to this day knows exactly how) life evolved from nonliving matter. This step eventually led to the toppling of another absolute- life is sacred and murder is wrong,-and replaced it with the idea that sometimes it was okay to terminate an innocent life. The boundaries for when and how this can be done are still under debate; after all, with no absolutes there is no solid answer to be found.

The extent to which this idea has permeated through society, and the identity of its author dawned upon me after reading a news story. While the story in itself was interesting, the implication given was sickening. The story highlighted the fact that some people are born “intersex” meaning having both male and female organs. Naturally, a course of logic follows that if some people are both male and female, then gender identity is not set in stone, but variable.

Like every good lie, this story has a kernel of truth. There are some people that are “intersex” by birth. However, this is not a ‘normal’ variation of the genetic code, but rather a mutation of the DNA caused by the curse. It isn’t a gray area between male and female-it’s a tragedy that is typically discovered and surgically remedied shortly after birth.

It surprised me when I realized that there was now a ‘gray area’ in almost every area of life. We have ‘little white lies’ that aren’t really wrong to tell, teenagers ‘experiment’ with drugs and sex, but it’s just ‘normal adolescent behavior’, not really sin. Just about everyone can find an accepted way to justify their actions. After all, if everyone is led by their own moral compass, who has the right to judge when someone’s moral compass doesn’t point the same way as theirs? What makes society’s rules right?

If our world were to completely subscribe to this theory (and for the most part we have), no one’s actions are definitely right or wrong, a person has no racial identity, and they may not be definitely male or female! It’s all a little confusing, isn’t it? If everything has a gray area, and there are no absolutes, we have nothing on which to judge our actions, or the actions of others. We don’t even know for certain who or what we are!

Thankfully, whether we will admit it and obey it or not, there is a standard. It’s called the Bible, and it will tell us exactly who and what we are, and what we are to do. It will also tell us who the author of confusion is-and the reasoning behind it.

The Bible says that “God is not the author of confusion.” (I Corinthians 14:33). If God doesn’t create confusion, who does? The devil, or Satan. He is always the opposite of God. He is a liar and the father of it (John 8:44). Lies cause confusion. They are at the root of every ‘gray area’ of relativism. The simple truth is that Satan hates God, and everything He made-including us. He wants to kill mankind, and take us to Hell so he can torment us forever. That same verse in John states that he was a murderer from the beginning.

As I realized the idea that was being emphasized in the news story I mentioned, I also realized why this idea of relativism was being presented so often and so strongly: it is part of Satan’s plan to steal God’s glory and destroy mankind. When mankind does not have a standard for right and wrong, they have no realization of sin, and they do not see their need for the Savior. That means they will not accept Christ, and will go to Hell, just like the devil wants. In addition, mankind was created to glorify, serve, and fellowship with God. When people deny God as Creator, and serve themselves, Satan gets God’s glory, just like he’s wanted since he was cast out of Heaven.

I have two main reasons for writing this article. Number one, if someone reading this happens to subscribe to the idea of relativism, I hope this article has pointed out the faults and consequences of this theory. It’s a lie of the Devil intended to destroy mankind both physically and spiritually. DON’T BELIEVE IT!

As far as I know, most of the people that read my blogs are friends of mine who have the same values as I do. I hope this article points out the fact that the false ideas and theories that float around in this world didn’t make themselves. I think too often we as Christians convince our neighbors we are nuts because we are always talking about ‘they’ and ‘them’, typically referring to the government, or people in general that hate our beliefs and want to destroy the gospel. While I have no doubts that the government, Hollywood, and many other groups hate us and hate God, I hope this article reminds you that ‘they’ are not our real enemy. ‘They’ hate us because they hate God and are blinded by Satan, who hates them as much as he hates us. While it is important to realize that there are ideas out there that are after our hearts and minds and the hearts and minds of our children and loved ones, I think that sometimes we need to back up so we can see the forest (Satan’s plan) and not just the trees (the people he uses to carry out that plan). Also, let’s remember: God knows all about Satan’s plans, and He’s won the war. We do not need to get so distracted fighting people that we let Satan win the battle for our families and neighbors. Let’s not get so wrapped up in what the devil is doing that we forget to praise God for what he has done.

What about Socialization?

What about Socialization?

As a homeschooling parent my mom heard this question a lot. While homeschooling is becoming more accepted, she still hears the age old drone whenever she tells people that she homeschooled me and my sister, and is still homeschooling my brother. Most people who gasp and utter this question are well meaning souls who probably assume that being homeschooled means we never left home…despite the fact that the conversation is probably taking place somewhere 500 miles from the house. What they’re referring to is the friendships, sporting experiences, and parties they attended in school. They’re worried that me and my siblings never get to do anything fun like that, and despite having met kids our age from all over the eastern U.S. at least, we won’t be able to have any friends. Right. The problem is it’s not normal. It doesn’t fit into the mold.

           I read a news story the other day about a 6-year-old boy who is facing battery charges after kicking his principle. When the boy threw a tantrum and kicked the principle, instead of calling the child’s parents, he called the cops. Ridiculous as it may sound, the child is facing battery charges. A spokesperson for the school said that they wanted to get the child in the system, in order to make therapy options available that he would not ordinarily have at home. My mom brought to my attention the thought, “And they call it Socialization.”
            What exactly is socialization, anyways? To most people, it’s spending time with your peers. However, I began thinking about the etymology, and decided to look it up.

Socialization is a noun, defined as: “1.a continuing process whereby an individual acquires a personal identity and learns the norms, values, behavior, and social skills appropriate to his or her social position. 2. The act or process of making socialistic: the socialization of industry.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialization

Wow! That definition actually fits more closely to the episode with the little boy being entered into “the system” than it does with just casually interacting with your friends, and learning how to interact with people.

Let’s talk for a minute on the definition of socialization, and how it relates to kids. When most people ask my mom, “What about socialization?” they probably aren’t trying to say, “How will they ever learn to take their ‘position in society’ and uphold the values taught in the school system?” However, when you substitute the definition of the word socialization into that sentence that is exactly what they are asking.
          How about the first part of definition number 1, “A continuing process whereby an individual develops a personal identity”? Do you send your kid to school so they can learn who to be? If school is for socialization, then yes indeed, your child learns who to be at school.
              Do you want your child to “learn the norms, values, behavior, and social skills appropriate for his or her social position” in school? Isn’t it sort of the parent’s job to teach their kids how to behave in public? Do norms and values change relative to social position? I suppose they do if you are “socialized”.

Definition number 2 sums up my point: “The act or process of making socialistic”

             Obviously, people don’t intend to ask my mom, “But what about making your kids socialists?” Nor do they intend to ask her, “But what about brainwashing?” but the truth remains, that’s what socialization is.

               I think that maybe before we roll our eyes and say, “Look, my kid has plenty of friends and opportunities and yadda yadda yadda…”, we should recall the definition of socialization and realize what they are unknowingly asking. Then we might smile and say, “Who needs it?”

Changing the Definition of Family

                I noticed recently that there seems to be a bit of a trend in the message of a majority of children's media in the past, say, 20 years. When I start going through a list of movies that I have seen, dating back from the early 1990's, most of them seem to embrace the idea that family is not necessarily  blood-it's the people who love you the most. Most of these movies star characters that are orphans or whose parents are divorced and in the end the child comes to the realization that they have a family after all. While I certainly realize that such situations are exceedingly painful, and that no one wants to feel like they only have half of a family, or no family at all, the truth of the matter is that the concept of a family has been slowly redefined in my generation, and will probably be more so in the next.

If you will notice most of the Disney movies that originated in the 1950's featured a child that generally had siblings, and both parents. (An exception would be The Parent Trap, in which the plot of the story is that the girls are trying to get their divorced parents back together.) Movies that were done (or redone) in the 1990's typically feature only one parent, or step parents, step siblings, etc. The conflict between the parents provides an integral part of the plot.

 Now, I'm not advocating the boycotting of movies that use this idea-in my opinion that would be going overboard. It isn't hard for a child to see that the lives of the child and parents in the movie are messed up. My problem lies more with the slow redefining of family than with the plot of the movies.  Upon stepping back and looking at the assertion that family is a group of people that love each other, I see an agenda. If a child's family can be just Mom, or just Dad, or their friend's family that takes them in because their own parents don't care, or whatever...what's to say family can't be two Moms or two Dads? The eroding of the idea that a family is Dad and Mom (who are  married and live together) and the children opens up the door to the idea that family can be two men and their adopted children, or two women.  I think that that is exactly the purpose.

As I look through history I see a slow turn in people's thinking from generation to generation. The idea that ‘the ends justify the means’, or Situation Ethics, is a theme of the kid's movies in the 1950's. Most people believed that right was right and wrong was wrong, but the idea has gradually crept in that it's ok to lie if you have a good reason, or it's ok to steal someone's animal if they're abusing it. The same thing is happening with homosexuality. The idea is being gradually introduced into mainstream media that it is ok to be "gay".

I was reading a parenting magazine last Friday (sitting in the waiting room of a tire shop) and noticed several references to dealing with your kids' school mates that  "have two mommies or daddies" and how to explain that to your kids. YUCK! I sit and watch as kids' shows and books promote this new definition of family, and I wonder, what will my children's generation (and I hope not my children) think of homosexuality? Most people in my generation, while not approving, are used to it.

 It doesn't shock me any more to see two men or women together. It's disgusting, but not appalling. What will our children think, as they grow up with stories that have this altered idea of family? We have been exposed more and more to the idea that homosexuality is normal. There are magazine articles and talk shows featuring homosexuality as normal or "just different." Homosexuals are frequently on reality TV shows, either as guests or hosts. Still, we don't think twice about why this "diversity" has become so prevalent. We don't see the motivation behind the magazine articles and the TV shows. We don't stop and think when we hear "Family can be anyone you love" at the end of the family movie. We seem to miss the rather apparent agenda. Why don't we realize there are forces that are after our children's minds to blind them from the truth? Are we blind already?

Faulty Logic

When I was about ten years old, my Dad brought me a book from the library. It was thin, hard covered, with a funny looking cover illustration depicting various farm animals. It was titled Animal Farm and was my first introduction to satire. Later, in college, I was assigned to read an essay by Jonathan Swift, titled A Modest Proposal. It is along these lines of satire that I endeavor to write a parable of my own, in order to point out a grand fallacy in the thought process of a very vocal portion of Americans.

It is well known that many vegetarians refuse to eat meat, or meat products, because it requires taking the life of an innocent animal. Thence the slogan “Meat is Murder”. I however, have developed an idea that would allow cattle marketers to circumvent that resistance and open up a new corner of the market, in addition to reducing the cost of raising beef, pork or mutton. The idea simply stated is this: The farmer simply takes a pregnant cow, pig, or sheep, near the end of her term, sends her into premature labor, and butchers the calf before it takes its first breath. This meat would then be available for ready consumption by vegetarians, as, after all, the calf was never really alive.

I daresay that most people upon reading this would find my proposal particularly disgusting and ludicrous, yet consider my interpretation of this satire:

Every day in America, the Land of the Free, the Land of Liberty, thousands of human children are being legally murdered before they can take their first breath. Proponents of this slaughter argue that the child is not really alive until it is completely born. Strangely enough to me, the same people that would protest the use of unborn calves as meat commend and condone the daily slaughter of human beings, as a woman’s right. While preparing to write this blog, as an assignment, I reviewed several websites, and came across an ad that really opened my eyes to the priorities of our Nation. The ad questioned, “Will you be pro-life after she is born?” and went on to say that if a person was not willing to devote equal time to fighting war, poverty, homelessness and ‘our planet’s degradation’, then they should stop defining themselves as ‘pro life’. I want to ask the American people, how is it that the primary right for a child to exist, unmolested, and defined as a person can be put on equal footing with saving the rainforests and taking political actions to improve the standard of living for adult persons. I definitely agree that it is a sad and terrible thing that people are living in poverty, but at least they have been allowed to live! Please, this debate is not about political action, it is about defining the unborn as a person with the same existing rights of protection that are allotted to adults. I ask a question posed by many fellow supporters of these unborn children: why are sea turtle eggs protected by the government, but Human embryos are legally used in genetic experiments? Why is it a crime to fight pit bulls, but legal to dissolve an unborn human in saline? Why do people consider veal a disgusting product of animal cruelty, and support stem-cell research that obtains its experimental material from the bodies of aborted babies? Why will people chain themselves to trees to prevent logging operations in the Amazon, and vote for candidates that approve government funding of abortions? What is wrong with us? When Jonathan Swift wrote A Modest Proposal he was speaking out against the treatment of the Irish people. His essay was based on the idea that the Irish were being treated like animals, and he used this satire to shock people into hopefully realizing what they were doing. What is most amazing to me is that in writing my little paragraph of a satire, I had to compare animals to people, because people are more easily moved by the plight of beef cows than by the slaughter of unborn children. And we say we have made progress?