posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:52 PM
So plants use up consiberaby more CO2 than previously thought (ie, "in the existing models").
And NASA discovered that a lot more CO2 escapes the atmosphere than previously thought (ie, "in the existing models")
And CERN discovered that climate change is much more affected by solar and space activity than previously thought (ie, "in the existing models")
Rather than put a gag rule on the most respected scientists in the world, and get a journal editor fired for publishing the study (both incidents
related to CERN), why don't we update "the existing models"?
Perhaps because there is too much money in cap and trade scams? Or because fear is the best way to gain control over people?
Bet the UN "scientists" poopoo this study, too.
but, but, but....all the current climatologists say anthropomorphic global warming is real! Wow, so the profession that survives by grants and funding
connected to global warming push the theory. Well that's a surprise.
If you believed Einstein early in his career, you were considered a quack. If you believed quantum theory when it came out, Einstein would've called
you a quack.
Was the little renaissance of the 12th century proof that humans create global warming(A documented warming period in human history)? If so, how did
they do it without industrial technology?
And how did they cool things down for the "little ice age" of the 17th-18th centuries?
This seems to be more and more a clear example of the dogma and religious devotion espoused by many scientists. Unlike political and actual religious
devotion, however, science tends to make the changes within a generation or so as the facts become laid bare and scientists who aren't religiously
devoted to their own theories come of age.
I have a feeling this will be one of those instances where science will change its mind. In fact, it seems to be already doing so. It's the politics
and economics of "climate change" that will take longer to get rid of.