Dire global warning on global warming

This is one great article about all the different aspects of global warming and it has the very latest information. This one article alone should make you question the sanity or honesty of many well known people promoting carbon legislation.

One demented preacher in the news today said that man caused global warming deniers are like child molesters. I want to reply to him that those who promote this carbon hoax on the world are murders! They are causing legislation and unnecessary burdens that will bring untold misery and death to many of the poor of the world. It will even cause famine and revolutions. But what do they care, many leading this facade think that poor people are useless eaters that the world would be better off without anyway.

If that is not enough carbon legislation will bring in world fascist where everything everyone does in the world will be controlled by carbon bean counters controlled by unelected elitist global governors.

FrontPage Magazine

The scientific consensus today is slowly beginning to shift away from the catastrophism of Gore, Suzuki and the United Nations IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, to suggest that the human contribution to global warming is far less than originally assumed and that a meteorological calamity is highly unlikely. (The IPCC, which certified and entrenched the so-called “scientific consensus,” is essentially a political body with an agenda of its own.) See Inhofe EPW Press Blog, Daily Tech online, and the journal Energy and Environment, whose findings are based on a survey of the ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) Web of Science database covering almost 9000 scientific publications.

Other reports conclude that “solar variability” is the major component in climate change and will run its course regardless of human intervention. As David Douglass writes in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society (December 2007), in a peer-reviewed article co-authored with several prominent scientists, “The observed pattern of warming . . . does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

The most sophisticated climate models indicate an undeniable discrepancy between surface and tropospheric temperature changes, which points to the sun as the primary agent in the long-term, fluctuating temperature curve. John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, patiently explains that the sun, which contains 99.8% of the mass of the solar system, in its hydrogen-fueled atomic fusion process, “consumes more mass in a second than all the fossil fuel ever burned on Earth,” the terrestrial impact of which reduces the human input to global warming to a level of insignificance. Though Coleman doesn’t cite actual figures, the fact is that the sun pours in excess of a million billion megawatt-hours annually on the earth. But he does quote the highly respected Australian mathematician and former carbon consultant for the Australian government, David Evans, who argues that “carbon emissions don’t cause global warming.” According to Evans, the IPCC models are wrong and the mathematics show that the human signature in the atmosphere is missing (KUSI News online, November 8, 2007).

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, author of the soon-to-be-translated Blue Planet in Green Chains, is on the mark when he warns of the irrationality of the bullish “global warming” industry: “As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism . . . Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives”

NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who has professed some skepticism about certain aspects of global warming research, especially with regard to theoretical computer models that tend, as he says, to run before they have learned to walk, was startled to realize that “you can’t express any sort of contrary opinion or a comment without it being treated almost as a religious issue” (Newsmax.com, March 17, 2008). The doxastic progression here is: science-politics-religion. To use Irving Kristol’s word, human beings are, whether we like it or not, “theotropic” beings.

Indeed, the metamorphosis of politics into a debased form of religion may be the bedrock definition of that otherwise debatable term, “fascism,” further specified as “ecofascism” by Janet Biehl and Peter Staudermaier in their book of that title.