Man-Caused Global Warming: An Update

Or call it man-caused climate change, or anthropogenic global warming, whatever you prefer. It is all a hoax, a big lie, and a scam. Now the Obama Administration, using the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) as a tool, is trying to ram it down our throats. We will pay dearly if his proposed legislation succeeds. This will be done without open debate, without a vote, in fact it represents a tremendous amount of taxation without representation. Weren't there wars fought over the violation of that right, the right to have a say in how one is taxed? Read on.
Peter


Thomas: Is it consensus or really censorship?
Cal Thomas Tribune Media Services (source)

The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted a "finding" to the White House Office of Management and Budget that will force the Obama administration to decide whether to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. If adopted, new laws and regulations will likely follow that have the potential to change our lifestyles and limit our freedoms. None of these will be preceded by debate, they will be imposed on us by fundamentalist politicians and scientists who have declared global warming as fact; end of discussion.

On the Discovery Channel last week, Tom Brokaw hosted a special called "Global Warming: The New Challenge." While promoting the piece, Brokaw declared, "there is a growing consensus that global warming is real and getting worse." Actually, there is a growing body of opinion that global warming is a fraud perpetrated by liberal politicians and their scientific acolytes who want more control over our lives.

Whenever politicians declare a crisis, or an emergency, watch out. Chances are this means they want to impose something before the public discovers the truth. One of the definitions of consensus is "general agreement or concord; harmony." Any honest assessment of scientific opinion leads to the conclusion that there is significant disagreement on global warming within the scientific community among those with expertise in climatology and related fields.

Yet many politicians want us to believe all of science is on board with manmade global warming and that we must act now to save the planet and ourselves from catastrophe (catastrophe is another word politicians like to use when imposing their agendas).You know something is up when prominent apostles of global warming, especially former vice president Al Gore, refuse to discuss the issue with any scientist who takes a contrary view.

For information that debunks the "science" of global warming visit www.globalwarminghoax.com.

For global warming fundamentalists, no amount of contradictory information will dilute their faith. Science makes mistakes, as did NASA when it published data on global warming trends in an effort to gauge the warmest years in U.S. history. Their temperature statistics were flawed. The year 1998 was not the hottest year on record, as NASA originally stated, it was 1934 -- the year Wiley Post discovered the jet stream.

In New York earlier this month, more than 600 scientists, economists, legislators and journalists from many nations met for the second International Conference on Climate Change. Numerous presentations debunked with documentation what they called the pseudoscience and dictatorial intentions promoted by the UN, the European Union and the Obama administration. If there was media coveraget, I missed it.

The keynote speaker at the gathering was Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and the European Union. Klaus described environmentalism as a new collectivist religion that doesn't just want to change the climate, but us as well. Klaus rejected the executive summary published by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as all politics and environmental activism, "not science."

Truth is sometimes inconvenient, as Al Gore likes to say. But that cuts both ways. Truth can also be inconvenient when it shines light on propaganda. Not to allow for a full-fledged debate on global warming is censorship, a popular practice in totalitarian societies and many fundamentalist religions and cults.

This is one of the graphics used to get people all riled up about so called "greenhouse gases", in this case carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Of course every time we exhale we emit CO2, but nobody mentions that. Carbon dioxide sounds so evil, doesn't it? Plants need it as part of their growth process. We drink it every day in our carbonated beverages. Real dangerous stuff, isn't it!

Here's what just one of the leading scientists says about carbon dioxide as it relates to global warming. Are you listening Big Al? (I doubt it.) Maybe Congress will listen. I have a novel idea, send this to every member of Congress. In fact send this whole blog to them....
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/

This is from Dr. Reid A. Bryson, "the Father of Modern Climatology":
Click here for the entire article: http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2007/03/global-warming-nonsense-detector-by-dr.html


These are what he feels are some very major and important misconceptions:

2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.

3. The most important gas with a "greenhouse" effect is carbon dioxide. Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide.

5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done. Wrong. The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is often less than acceptably scientific.

6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced warming of the climate is a fact. Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.