You come here as a noob and start posting this "evidence" like no one has done it before and you have new, fresh material. It been done by a lot of people who have offered much better arguments than you and still no one's mind has been changed. Since you have nothing new in the way of "proof" why do you even bother? You insult long time posters who question the theory of Global Warming and you take it personal and then make it personal with attacks on intelligence and comprehension. The bottom line is that for every bit of evidence you offer I or someone else will counter it with refuting evidence. If you want to believe in your myths and junk science, fine... go right ahead. But don't expect others to be as gullible as you are and as easily swayed by chicken little faith. If the sky is falling it's doing it on its own with little to no help from mankind.Originally Posted by hazlnut
The simple fact that reputable scientist disagree with the conclusions of other scientist means that the issue is not settled and no amount of shoe pounding and self-righteous indignation changes that fact.
But if it make you feel good, preach on brother.:)
The above excerpt was taken from ICECAPSunday, November 11, 2007
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
Update by Joe D’Aleo, Icecap
Thursday, November 15, John Coleman, the founder of the cable TV Weather Channel and currently TV meteorologist in San Diego at KUSI began a series of short briefs trying to explain in simplified terms for the layman why he does not believe in global greenhouse warming on his KUSI climate blog.
Below was his original statement that got much national attention. KUSI and Icecap received hundreds of emails, better than 90% favorable, thanking John for his courage in speaking out on this issue and thanking KUSI and Icecap for covering the news the networks won’t cover. There were of course some negative responses mostly ad hominem attacks questioning motivation as is typical in this issue. Some requested John follow up with some concrete facts in understandable terms and he will begin to do that. The first brief on that link will address the ‘hockey stick”.
During the 20th century, the earth warmed 0.6 degree Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit), but that warming has been wiped out in a single year with a drop of 0.63 degree C. (1.13 F.) in 2007. A single year does not constitute a trend reversal, but the magnitude of that temperature drop — equal to 100 years of warming — is noteworthy. Of course, it can also be argued that a mere 0.6 degree warming in a century is so tiny it should never have been considered a cause for alarm in the first place. But then how could the idea of global warming be sold to the public? In any case, global cooling has been evident for more than a single year. Global temperature has declined since 1998. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon dioxide has gone in the other direction, increasing 15–20%. This divergence casts doubt on the validity of the greenhouse hypothesis, but that hasn't discouraged the global warming advocates. They have long been ignoring far greater evidence that the basic assumption of greenhouse warming from increases in carbon dioxide is false.
The above excerpt was taken from Liberty Unbound
The above excerpt was taken from Global Warming HyperboleClaude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “ increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena ”. Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “ Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages”. v
