first off, proving a negative is impossible, but there is conflicting data as well as common sense, which helps a lot, let me start with data:
the question is which to believe?
then let me ask you if you think that
*) there have been warmer periods on earth in the past and at least their peaks were much warmer than today's climate
*) there've been colder times, which are, in fact the norm, considering the immense duration of ice ages
*) climate changed in the past and the world did not end, or did it?
in other words, why would this time be any different, no matter the cause?
if all this jazz is nothing new, it begs the question why be upset in a way which apparently justifies anything, including the air tax? which brings
me to the core issue: no debate, just coralling people into a scam, which won't do squat for climate, while actually harming the environment, as
other aspects (think heavy metals and other toxins, see www.abovetopsecret.com...
for an eye opener, which, incidentially
was automatically blamed on GW at first) are falling by the wayside, while lining the pockets of people like Al Gore.... the political class only has
our best interest at heart, right? that alone should ring a bell, shouldn't it?
i am quite curious, how effective these 'climate protection' CO2 tax regimes are, because growing fuel while merrily deforesting the Amazon basin
(issues, which are, according to the official line, absolutely unconnected anyway
) seems neither logical nor very wise, does it?
PS: if it's a cold spell, it's 'climate change' if it's hot, same. have you ever contemplated what it would take to refute GW? a complete
standstill, repeating weather patterns, day after day, year after year. the odds for that are astronomical, so 'GW' or 'CC' can probably
considered a safe bet, but science needs to be falsifiable, ie. there needs to be a clearly laid-out way to disprove it. such conditions muct be
agreed on, before performing an experiment and i'm certain that all these people now building their lives around shouting Wolf will fight with
tenacity to keep their precious scarecrow along with its lush funds.
if i were you i'd memorize certain predictions, be they sea level rise or the disappearance of glaciers, if that does not happen within the cited
timeframes.... remember that, so far only alarmist calls of sinking islands
have made the news, which, is of course a problem of erosion, not
sea level just think of the Hawaii chain, older volcanoes are more eroded and therefore smaller.
edit: i found two more interesting tidbits, casting severe doubt upon the integrity of mainstream sources
if someone else than NASA had discontinuities in their temperature graphs, they'd ave to retract everything, NASA, of course, 'amends'...
the best for last, as the say:
in 1990, the number of sensor stations around the world was severly reduced (see .pdf), at the same time, GW was just taking off, and you' expect an
in funding and a similar increase in the overall number stations, yet the opposite happend. the remaining ones were apparently located
closer to urban centers (heat island effect), resulting on a jump in perceived global temperature.
so, it might just be a myth, and why not? with proper planning and enough time, anything goes. it certainly looks extremely suspicous, to say the
least and if i were evil, i'd ask how long it takes to indoctrinate a new generation of scientists and get them into position. i would of course add
my guesstimate of roughly a decade, maybe slightly more. in that case, they'd be in their peak right now.
ok, now the PS& edits are longer than the original post, d'Uh
[edit on 5.2.2008 by Long Lance]