Skip to comments.There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
Posted on 12/02/2004 10:33:15 AM PST by Marine_Uncle
There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period.
Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends -- be they teachers, newscasters, congressmen, senators, vice presidents or presidents -- is wrong.
In fact, scientific research through U.S. government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling -- very slightly -- 0.037 degrees Celsius.
A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936, the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992, there was only one day over 90 degrees and, in 1997, only five days.
Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."
Changes in global temperatures are natural. In fact, much of the recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually reverse for a time.
The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and even drought on every continent on earth. It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across the globe since long before man appeared.
How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting? On Election Day, the Financial Times of London carried the hysterical headline: "Arctic Ice Cap Set to Disappear by the Year 2070."
The article stated that the Arctic ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate. The article is based on a report titled "Impacts of a Warming Arctic," submitted by a group of researchers called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessement (ACIA).
It must be understood just who makes up this so-called group of researchers. The report is not unbiased scientific data. Rather, it is propaganda from political groups that have an agenda.
The report was commissioned by the Arctic Council, which is comprised of a consortium of radical envionmentalists from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States. All are nations that possess land within the Arctic Circle.
Many of these countries, through the Kyoto Protocol, have a financial stake in pushing the global warming agenda. One of the groups providing "scientists" to the ACIA "researchers" is the World Wildlife Fund, one of the leading chicken-little scaremongers that create junk science at the drop of a news release to terrify us all into proper environmental conduct.
The report is now being used at the global warming meeting currently underway in Buenos Aires to rally the troops and bully the United States into accepting the discredited Kyoto Protocol.
We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, and America's coastlines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we're warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry.
Any change in temperatures, an excessive storm or extended flooding is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental armageddon is upon us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino phenomenon to whip people into a global warming hysteria.
Two kinds of scientists
We are assured by such groups that scientists everywhere are sounding these warnings and that we may only have one chance to stop it. Well, as the debate rages, we find that there are really two kinds of scientists.
There are those who look at facts and make their judgments based on what they see and know. Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a age-old practice called "peer review." It's the only true science.
And then, there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually, you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money.
Let's just take NASA, for example -- the most trusted name in American science. A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into the money trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified launches through the excuse of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming.
At the same time, many of NASA's scientists have a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate global warming. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.
This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992, when a team of three NASA scientists was monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the ozone layer was in danger. Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America -- if certain things happened.
True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait, and many times, they test again before drawing conclusions. Not so the green zealot.
Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research. But one took the data and rushed to the microphones with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie and announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an ozone hole over North America.
Then Sen. Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon -- five years before Congress had intended -- and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George H.W. Bush to sign the legislation by saying the ozone hole was over Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush's favorite vacation spot.
Two months later, NASA announced -- on the back pages of the newspapers -- that further research had shown there was no such damage. But it was too late. The valuable comodity known as freon was gone forever.
Flawed computer models
Then there are those computer models. Night after night, Americans watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.
But it's well known that even with all of their research and expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here, it could blow in a storm. If the temperature drops there, it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.
Yet those who are promoting the global warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future.
The truth is that computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than what we have now.
To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large, only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers. Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate.
So it's an outrage for the World Wildlife Fund or the Sierra Club to tell you that man-made global warming is a fact and that we Americans must now suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.
Scientists are not on the global warming bandwagon
And so, too, is it an outrage for the news media to tell you that most true scientists now agree that man-made global warming is a fact.
What it doesn't tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming.
Today, that figure has grown to more than 4,000 scientists. Americans aren't being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory.
And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying global warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report, two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis, said:
1. "[N]one of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."
2. "[N]o study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ... man-made causes."
Obviously, those two paragraphs aren't consistent with the political agenda the U.N. is pushing. So, science be damned. Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world -- bar none.
The Kyoto Climate Control Protocol
Those who have been fighting against the radical green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has little to do with protecting the environment. Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world's wealth.
They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of the KGB and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club. The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.
School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction. Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold, all of it for a lie about something man has nothing to do with.
But the lie has grown to massive proportions -- and the game is about to get very serious indeed. Pressure is building again to impose the Kyoto Protocol worldwide.
Only a few years ago, this treaty appeared dead when President George W. Bush refused American participation. Now, however, Russia has signed on, and the U.N. has enough support to begin implementing its dire consequences -- even on the United States.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has called the White House stance on global warming "terribly disappointing." McCain is now using the ACIA report to convene hearings on the "human effect on climate and what to do about it." McCain intends to help build pressure on the president to accept the Kyoto Protocol.
In fact, the Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which industrial nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels. This means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 7 percent more. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, would devastate this nation.
To meet such drastically reduced energy standards would -- in the short run -- cost the United States more than one million jobs. Some estimate it would cost more than seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it would cost even more jobs.
It would cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food would skyrocket. It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal, our gross domestic product would be reduced by $200 billion -- annually.
To force down energy use, the Federal government would have to enforce a massive energy tax that would drive up the cost of heating your home by as much as 30 to 40 percent. In all likelihood, there would be a tax on gasoline -- as high as 60 cents per gallon.
There would be consumption taxes and carbon taxes. The Department of Energy has estimated that electricity prices could rise 86 percent -- and gasoline prices 53 percent.
The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle. That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme. Cars banned. Industry curtailed. Housing smaller. Family size controlled.
Every single product that is produced with the use of energy would increase in price. This includes items such as aspirin, contact lenses and toothpaste.
A study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory finds that the treaty would cripple U.S. industries, including paper, steel, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, aluminum and cement. That about sums up the economy.
Global raid on American wealth
But perhaps you still are not convinced. Maybe you still cling to the idea that such drastic action is necessary -- that those pushing the global warming agenda are truly in a panic over global warming and are just trying to find a solution.
If you are one of these people, ask yourself: Why does the Kyoto Protocol only bind developed nations to draconian emission levels?
Undeveloped Third World nations would be free to produce whatever they want. These would include China, India, Brazil and Mexico. Yet 82 percent of the projected emissions growth in future years would come from these countries.
Now ask yourself: If the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol is all about protecting the environment, then how come it doesn't cover everybody?
The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about redistribution of the wealth. The wealth of the United States is, and has always been, the target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.
And international corporations that owe allegiance to no nation would bolt America and move their factories lock, stock and computer chip to those Third World countries, where they would be free to carry on production.
But that means the same emissions would be coming out of the jungles of South America instead of Chicago. So where is the protection of the environment? You see, it's not about that, is it?
Still not convinced? One more thing. Hidden in the small print of the treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws." Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?
And still more looting of the U.S. treasury is planned. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol also want industrialized nations to subsidize poor countries' adaption to global warming to the tune of $73 billion per year. Obtaining such subsidies would be an interesting trick after the U.S. economy had been destroyed by the treaty. Looters rarely have the ability to think that far in advance.
Don't think this devastation can't happen. The U.N. and the European Union have exposed their hatred for the United States. They envy our wealth and think that legalized theft, rather than sound economic policy, is the way to obtain it.
The fact is that one person now stands between the global warming jackals and economic sanity: George W. Bush. Will he stand firm in his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol? Or will he capitulate to massive international pressure and sell America's soul?
Its all true. All anyone has to do is watch "The day after tomorrow" to know whats coming. Were all doomed. Yeah right!
I'm sure we have some level of impact on the environment, I just think it's far from what the enviro-freaks would like us all to believe.
"Regardles of the hype we still need to carefully look at our activities and eliminate unnecessary potential factors."
Even though you say you 'think' there may be human activities that 'could' influence our climate, you also admit that there isn't any real 'proof' of this.
Speculation is exactly what these 'scientist' base their 'assumptions' on.
So. The question remains.
Since the late 19th century (certainly the mid-1800's), the northern hemisphere has gotten warmer. The Thames used to freeze solid. Snow would get dozens of feet deep regularly in some places.
This warming trend is a result of finally breaking out fo the Little Ice Age.
The only factors the politicos see is capitalism and the US economy. There is NOTHING man can do to alter in any meaningful way, what mother nature will. If this enviro-freaks really cared about the environment they would be rapidly promoting capitalism and property rights to species in the oceans and elsewhere. They enviro nuts only care about one thing -- destroying capitalism.
Yes, but nothing new, as with all political issues.
yes the question does remain.
NOx, SOx, other VOCs, Carbon dioxide, methane, particulate matter (especially black carbon or soot), fluorinated compounds, and ozone to name a few. Not saying they need to be eliminated but at least used cautiously. Personally I believe the particlate matter to be the biggest issue.
A good scientist doesn't speculate or publish assumptions. It is largely the media and activist groups that have interpreted the results of research to suit their agenda. Your correct we don't have an answer to the question but I still think its rather ignorant to rule out the damage we may be doing. Much like any debate, you cannot prove something does not exist by failing to prove that it does.
"While I do not agree with the gloom and doomsayers regarding anthropogenic warming trends these statements seem particularily inappropriate to prove the point of the article."
I think the point of the article is that any actions to restrict human activity to "curb" glbal warming, especially dire actions, are unwarranted.
"It is nearly impossible to 'positively' attribute global warming to man-made cause/greenhouse gases. There are just to many factors involved further reiterated by the author pointing out the weaknesses in our models."
That's what THEY said.
"While we not be able to attribute a direct correlation between warming trends and our activities, the indirect effects are immeasurable."
It is irresponsible to advocate taking action to curtail that which is "immeasurable".
"The synergistic effect goes unnoticed."
Synergistic effect? Where I went to engineering school, they taught us that "synergy" was pretty much like alchemy. In real science, you get out what you put in, period.
"It's is impossible to attribute a causal relationship when multiple variables like this are involved in an open system."
Again, without causation, there's no basis for action.
"I think, both the people who think we are killing the planet and those that think we are doing no harm, are both missing the boat. Right now the burden of proof is on the scientists and we currently cannot cannot prove we are contributing to the warming trend, though that does not mean we aren't. Regardles of the hype we still need to carefully look at our activities and eliminate unnecessary potential factors."
I cannot prove you are breaking into my house at night and hassling my pets, though that doesn't mean you aren't. Does that give me carte blanche to come over to your house and shoot you to "eliminate unnecessary potential factors"? I think not.
It doesn't make any sense to wreck our surroundings for no reason whatsoever, any more than it makes sense to take unnecessary measures in a misguided effort to "save" something that doesn't need saving. There is no current, scientifically credible evidence to establish that human activity has any significant impact on global climate. The only motivation to believe "global warming" at this stage is either to grab political power or to make ourselves feel better.
>"I agree with the author 100% Global Warming is NOT caused by humans."
Ditto, I'd have to agree with you also.
"Your correct we don't have an answer to the question but I still think its rather ignorant to rule out the damage we may be doing. "
And there you go again.
'Rule out the damage we MAY be doing'.
You make this statement based on what?
"We might be causing problems, even tho there is no proof, so we should be careful."
I might have chicken for lunch, but, then again, I might not!
You can't base your assumptions on a possible 'negative' influence that has yet to be proved!
The climate is changing, though, regardless of the cause. Temperatures at high latitudes have increased by several degrees; glaciers world-wide are in retreat. Glacier National Park is going to be poorly-named in several decades if this continues. Mt. Kilimanjaro is losing its glacier as well: by 2020 if trends continue, it will be gone. This glacier is 12,000 years old. (However, a drop in precipitation rather than an increase in temperature seems to be the reason for this.)
'Global warming' is an agenda.
A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936, the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992, there was only one day over 90 degrees and, in 1997, only five days."
It just proves that 100 years of data (in some cases less) is not sufficient to show a trend in 4.5 billion years of earth's climate history.
"It just proves that 100 years of data (in some cases less) is not sufficient to show a trend in 4.5 billion years of earth's climate history."
I think that is what the author was trying to point out.
But, I could be wrong!
Kilimanjaro is a volcano that is beleived to be about one million years old. That means the current glacier covered Kilimanjaro for 12,000 years, or about 0.012% of its lifetime. Kilimanjaro has been without a glacier before, and chances are it will be without a glacier again.
"I don't know why everyone likes to pick at me when I am essentially agreeing with most of you."
Not picking at you, just your arguments. You agree that there's no science to support action, yet you advocate action. That's a logical inconsistency, which doesn't sit well.
"When did I ever say we need to take radical steps to change our ways based on something we cannot prove? I haven't."
Not to start a "who struck John first", but I didn't say anything about "radical steps", either.
"The fact is we have multiple compunds coming into the system from multiple sources, and their synergistic effect is relatively unknown."
No no no no no no no. There is no such thing as a "synergistic" effect. If what you mean is that there may be unpredictable reactions in certain combinations of compounds, fine. If you suspect such a combination contributes to climate change, toss it out there and test it. Basing action on the mere possibility of the existence of such an effect is silly.
" it seems a big part of the arguements come from a capitalist perspective. Isn't one of the goals of capitalism (though often indirect) efficiency? All I am saying is that we should strive to do things in the most efficent manner possible. After all the vast majority of these compounds are byproducts. Why not strive to reduce the wanton discharge of such compounds?"
Efficiency is not a goal of capitalism unless efficiency is economically desirable. We can design an internal combustion-powered automobile that attains in excess of 100 MPG. It would unquestionably be the most "efficient" vehicle on the market. However, the cost of manufacture, safety, and comfort of such a vehicle make it economically undesirable. The reduction of the "byproducts" you reference costs money. If I gain little or no demonstrable economic or environmental benefit from such reduction, what is the incentive to spend the money?
I was talking to a person about how much my family enjoys Glacier National Park, and she expressed how much she was alarmed that the glaciers are melting, and how we have to do something about it RIGHT NOW! She absolutely would not believe me when I pointed out that they've been melting for over 10,000 years. You can't argue with people who refuse to recognize facts.
The Kyoto protocol and every other chicken little proposal is 100% politically driven. It makes no more sense to assert that people affect world climate in any significant way than to say people affect tectonic movements and volcanc activity, or sunspots.
By my estimate, there are around 146,099,000 days in 400,000 years so... sure, we can make life miserable for 6 billion people based on one hot summer or two.
Makes sense to me!
< /sarcasm >
Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous scientific people, and "let on" to prove what had occurred in the remote past by what had occurred in a given time in the recent past, or what will occur in the far future by what has occurred in late years, what an opportunity is here! Geology never had such a chance, nor such exact data to argue from! Nor "development of species," either! Glacial epochs are great things, but they are vague--vague. Please observe:--
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oölitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi, Chapter XVII (Pg 209)
Not unless they are all rocketted into outer space.
Every single atom that was ever on earth (since it cooled, of course) is still here, and as I undestand it, we pick up a little additional mass each year.
So, "wasteful" in what way, exactly?
I have three dogs, twice a week I pick up two gallons of dog hair and four pounds of particulate matter that has obediently settled on every surface within the confines of my abode.
The article is correct based on the existing data.
Wasteful in that you are using compound 'ABC' combined with compound 'DEF' to get product ABDE. Compounds C and F are byproducts that are not used by said manufactuer. Essentially the company is paying for C and F as parts of each original compound. The discharge of those 'unused' compounds is wasteful in production efficiency sense and the economic sense. It's kinda like buying a whole pig and only 'using' the ribs. mmmm ribs! Would it not be in everyone's best interest to be able to use coumpounds C and F? I'm not infering that this can be done in every case but it is something we should strive for. A smart business model would at least explore the option.
Absolutely - the only thing she did not foresee was that the politicos would hide behind environmentalism to accomplish their socialistic goals. But her premises were dead nuts on.
The reason is because the Global Warming crowd is out to destroy our very existence. Their goal is nothing short of brining down the U.S. You need to understand that their position is totally without scientific merit. Therefore, to show ANY position that can be twisted by "them" to indicate support cannot be promulgated. Their goals are as evil as the terrorists and socialist everywhere. I don't care one bit about climate change because any cursory reading on the topic shows the Earth goes through many such changes (long before man was around) At it's core the Global Warming crowd is totally political. Therefore, it would be wise to repudiate them at every turn. That is why you are seemingly attacked somewhat passionately. You just don't seem to understand how dangerous their positions are to our future.
The "global warming" hoax is being used as a political device designed to stampede governments into making unwise, precipitous, and pernicious policy changes they would otherwise not make. The "principle of prudence" or whatever they're calling it these days says: "Don't do anything; something might happen." So you are paralyzed into zero progress--something the 'greens' have devotely wished for since the word was coined.
Thanks for posting this gem. Even Twain was onto the environuts, back before they even existed.
Oh no. It is much more than that. They wish to return humanity to living in mud huts and scratching in the soil for grubs. Not only the U.S. Humanity.
As I like to put it: "They are not pro-nature; they are anti-human."
One of their spokespersons (I forget the name) actually said he wished for a global virus to wipe out humanity, for the sake of "Gaia".
Perhaps that is because I am forced to work with a lot of these nuts on a daily basis. I do see them (not necessarily my colleagues) as a serious threat, however I am still concerned with our environment. I do a lot of work with endangered species (which I am sure a lot of you would despise)and often run into the obstacle of trying to protect a particular species when the reason for its decline is multi-faceted. The global warming issue is similar to some degree, well possibly we just aren't sure but I am keeping an open mind.
For example I was working with an endangered rattlesnake. My research showed that the decline was due to habitat loss/degradation. In the park I work at, several wetlands (the hibernacula for this particular snake) were ditched prior to the park formation. While it would be irresponsible to say that the ditch itself is responsible for the decline, the subsequent loss of proper wetland habitat clearly is. The data shows the presence of the ditch is not related to this snakes presence or abundance, while the data does show that the presence or lack of ephemeral wetlands is related. The presence of ephemeral wetlands was shown not to be related to ditches, as some ditched areas still contain these wetlands due to other factor (mainly topography). That puts the researcher in a conundrum in that a simple logical extrapolation of my data makes it clear that the ditching of the wetland is a major cause of the decline, however I cannot attribute the actual ditch to it. As a scientist I can only report what I found, the interpretation of it is up to the reader. Hopefully that somewhat explains where I am coming from. It is very difficult to show direction causation in an open system, I think this holds true in the global warming issue as well as some of my work.
I fully believe there is no significant man-made global warming. There certainly is some but only on a butterfly effect scale. It's just not what the Godless liberals say. But, windpower is a good idea on it's own merrit.
Global Warming is caused by the Sun, it happens every year in the spring. It escalates in the summer and it goes away every Fall.
Global warming is reversed in the Winter, when we have Global cooling.
It is called Seasons and weather.
YW: "The article is correct based on the existing data.
Thanks. I for one intend to check the contents of the site out in detail. I have grossly avoided reading about global warming issues for a number of years. Call it being lazy.
Perhaps others will find some interesting things at this site.
Growing Glaciers anyone? See the article at this site titled:
Glaciers are growing around the world, including the United States (Mount Rainier, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Shasta, among others)
You may find it rather interesting.
You can only make sweaters out of long haired dog fur. The short haired varieties have to be used to stuff pillows. Of course they have to be labeled as an animal product and then Peta would be all over you. Then there is the hypoallergenic coalition.
Thanks. I recommend you read the book, "Not by Fire, but by Ice." What we really are talking about is ocean warming, not global warming. It is part of the natural climate cycle of the Earth. Man has very little to do with it. We are due for another Ice Age, which occurs with almost clockwork reliability for millions of years. All the signs indicate that a new Ice Age is imminent.
I put lamb meat in my Peta.
"All the signs indicate that a new Ice Age is imminent."
Thanks. I buy the idea about ocean warming, it fits in with ocean climatolical changes we have seen on the west coast in recent times etc.. Of course we cannot expect shows on PBS such as Nova, whatever, to show us documentaries on the expanding glacier systems, increase on pack ice in Antartica, recent trends of colder winters in north/south America etc..
Must keep the masses stupid, so they think GWB is against saving the planet! I keep wondering about where McCains's brains are. Perhaps it is time to send him some emails on this issue with associated reference sites.
Again thanks for the nice site, I am reading articles from it as I pop back the freepers site.