Skip to comments.Global warming heresy
Posted on 03/28/2007 5:51:37 PM PDT by kindred
Most climatologists agree that the earth's temperature has increased about a degree over the last century. The debate is how much of it is due to mankind's activity. Britain's Channel 4 television has just produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a documentary that devastates most of the claims made by the environmentalist movement. The scientists interviewed include top climatologists from MIT and other prestigious universities around the world. The documentary hasn't aired in the U.S., but it's available on the Internet.
Among the many findings that dispute environmentalists' claims are: Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's activities. Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases. Contrary to environmentalists' claims, the higher the Earth's temperature, the higher the carbon dioxide levels. In other words, carbon dioxide levels are a product of climate change. Some of the documentary's scientists argue that the greatest influence on the Earth's temperature is our sun's sunspot activity. The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk.
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore testifies before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on global warming, on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 21, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES) Throughout the Earth's billions of years there have been countless periods of global warming and cooling. In fact, in the year 1,000 A.D., a time when there were no SUVs, the Earth's climate was much warmer than it is now. Most of this century's warming occurred before 1940. For several decades after WWII, when there was massive worldwide industrialization, there was cooling.
There's a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. That's the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view. According to a March 11 article in London's Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges." Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."
Suppressing dissent is nothing new. Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
Today's version of yesteryear's inquisitors include people like the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen, who advocates that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming. Columnist Dave Roberts, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."
There are literally billions of taxpayer dollars being handed out to global warming alarmists, not to mention their dream of controlling our lives. Their agenda is threatened by dissent. They have the politician's ear; not we, who will suffer if they have their way.
Agreed. Some points it makes are debatable certainly. But it does ask very pointed questions and shows what an incredible industry and political scam global warming has become without question.
Point anyone to it that wants balance from Gore's propaganda.
It is amazing what a house of cards the global warming theory is based on, and how so many supposively intelligent people won't stand up to the lies. Bunch of spineless SOBs, IMHO who are either too afraid of losing funding or too afraid to stand up for the truth.
I work at a large interational insurer. The company wasted no time jumping on the "global warming" issue and is hosting the Goracle at an upcoming breakfast. After seeing daily snippets pertaining to global warming on the corp. intranet site and the pending "Enviromental Disasters", it occurred to me. How much did we stand to make insuring global companies against these perceived threats? What really would be our exposure? We milked the terrorist threat for all it was worth and we won't let this golden opportunity pass us by. There's gold in them fears.
When an opponent declares, I will not come over to your side, I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community." Adolf Hitler
Speech November 1933, quoted in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer
Gold and freedom for some.
Poverty and tyranny for most.
Bill in Hershey
Something to ponder: we were supposedly undergoing global COOLING during the age of the Chevy SS-396, the Dodge Super Bee, the 426 Hemi Plymouth Barracuda, the GTO and all the other fine muscle cars of that era. Yet, today, we are in the age of the Mini-Cooper and cars that "sip" gasoline and we have global WARMING? HELLO? HELLO?