GLOBAL WARMING SCAM...

How interesting!

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Hang on a second, there must be some mistake, right? Wrong.

There was a period of global warming between 1970 and 1998. And there was another similar period of warming between 1918 and 1940.  Then, global temperatures COOLED until 1964, just as human emissions were surging all over the planet! Shurely shome mistake???

Here's the point; Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. The "end of the world is coming" cacophony emitted by the likes of the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is just plain nonsense, lapped up by headline hungry liberal MSM.

That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. But the prophets of global warming have their eyes wide closed......and that's a fact!

Tim Blair has an interesting take on the issue here.

Since 1970, carbon monoxide emissions in the U.S. are down 55%, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Particulate emissions are down nearly 80% and sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced by half. Lead emissions have declined more than 98%.

And yet...

Polar bears are drowning; an American city is underwater; ice sheets are crumbling ... the rate of warming from the 1970’s until now has been three times the average rate of warming since 1900. Seas have risen about six to eight inches globally over the last century and the rate of rise has increased in the last decade

So,  Tim suggests that we blame this on decreased carbon monoxide, particulate, sulfur dioxide, and lead emissions. For the sake of all the drowning polar bears, let’s get those pollutants up!  Yeah, time to go out in my 4x4!

Comments

[biagra]

Thats I have --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]

[Tom Collins]

Let's put the fear of God into the populace - then we can control them, inflic t all kinds of restrictions and tax them up to the hilt. We don't need facts, they say, just FEAR ! Then we can do what we like !

[Jan Wheeler]

brachiosaurus unsubjectable synovia sot byronize tawie unlearnedness biblioclast
Harbor Defense Museum
http://www.gullrealty.com/

[T. Dejmikian]

When you do a Google search for “Effects of Global Warming,” one of the top results that always appears is the Wikipedia entry for this subject. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, most of the people that sign up to edit this article are pro-global warming evangelists who exhibit a clear pro-global warming agenda. This means that everyone from school children to the media are getting this highly biased view of climate change, when they research this topic via a Google search. Fortunately, however, ANYONE can sign up on Wikipedia free of charge in less than one minute and edit this article. I would encourage everyone to sign up and contribute to this article, to ensure it presents the correct view of global warming. Simply go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming (or just go to Google and search “effects of global warming” to find the Wikipedia entry right near the top) and start editing! Then you can help to provide the proper balance that is needed in this highly biased article.

-T. Dejmikian

[Soft Cialis]

Do those who fell for the global warming scam become enraged and offensive in their defense of it?
Do those who fell for the global warming scam become enraged and offensive in their defense of it?

These types seem to be a very angry crowd and all seem to come from, or belong to, the same philosophical groups. That is, the environmentalist wackos, the abortionists, the Obama butt kissers, the hate America crowd and the Socialist/Marxist gang.

What do you think?