Man-Made Climate Change is a joke. A poor one at that.
Hey folks,
This whole thing has just become silly. Seriously. Everyday something new comes out about this SCAM. At this point, the IPCC is nothing more than a Saturday Night Live skit. I can see it now.
"We have released our new report to say that the World is at great risk. Evil people from America, uh, we mean, uh, everywhere, is destroying the planet. CO2 is kill us all. But it is not to late. If America, uh, everyone, does exactly what we say, and give their money away to us, we can save the planet."
OK. What about the fact that we learned all these Emails of the Leaders of the Chicken Little Crowds have been LYING. That they have been telling each other to cover up and hide the fact we are actually Cooling?
"Well, forget that. Means nothing. Why do you think we changed it to Climate Change instead of Global Warming?"
What about the fact we learned that all those measuring posts have been MOVED? To make it appear that we are still warming and the ice is still melting.
"Uh, never mind that. Uh, just accept what we are telling you."
OK. what about the fact that Himalayan Glacier Melt is bogus? It was based on an old study that had never been peer-reviewed or even published, which was based entirely on the speculation of a single Indian Scientist who now works at the Environmental group run by the head of the IPCC, Economist Rajendra Pachauri?
"Never mind that either. Uh, you can not disregard the whole report on just a few minor irregularities."
A few? 16 of your "Facts" have been proven to come from Envionut Groups, NOT real Scientists, and they are FALSE. Not to mention there is NO real science backing ANYTHING?
"Shut up. Just believe what we tell you. We will make you. This new Government of yours is on our side and they are working on creating laws that will FORCE you to just do whatever we say, as long as we say it's for the good of the planet."
Remember just as they we going into Copenhagen, some were saying we only had 10 months to halt "Climate Change." I actually think that they called it Global Warming. So what did they achieve at Copenhagen? A signed agreement to talk more about it in 12. {Laughing} Not to mention a "Carbon Footprint" in the 12-day conference created 40,584 tons of CO2 equivalents. The same amount as the Carbon Emissions of Morocco in 2006.
Ten years, Twenty, oh, uh, in another Twenty, uh by 2050, uh? It's all BOGUS. Snowmageddon is happening as we speak. Global Warming? Here is just SOME of what has come out this week. Times Online - UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim by Jonathan Leake
A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.
The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.
This is the third time in as many weeks that serious doubts have been raised over the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. Two weeks ago, after reports in The Sunday Times, it was forced to retract a warning that climate change was likely to melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. That warning was also based on claims in a WWF report.
The IPCC has been put on the defensive as well over its claims that climate change may be increasing the severity and frequency of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.
Where are they?
This weekend Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, was fighting to keep his job after a barrage of criticism.
Scientists fear the controversies will be used by climate change sceptics to sway public opinion to ignore global warming — even though the fundamental science, that greenhouse gases can heat the world, remains strong.
{Sigh} It's ALL BS. This is pathetic "fundamental science, that greenhouse gases can heat the world, remains strong."Notice it does not say the world IS. It says the theory of "green House Gases to have the ability to heat the globe, is fundamental. That is like me saying, Science says that the Volcano, if it erupts, can and WILL destroy everything in it's path. So give me money so I can figure out a way to prevent that. The Science is strong, but the Volcano is NOT erupting, nor is it going to any time soon. Kind of like old tribes of people sacrificing to the Volcano gods. Right? Is that what we should be doing now with the GW gods?
The latest controversy originates in a report called A Global Review of Forest Fires, which WWF published in 2000. It was commissioned from Andrew Rowell, a freelance journalist and green campaigner who has worked for Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and anti-smoking organisations. The second author was Peter Moore, a campaigner and policy analyst with WWF.
In their report they suggested that “up to 40% of Brazilian rainforest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall” but made clear that this was because drier forests were more likely to catch fire.
The IPCC report picked up this reference but expanded it to cover the whole Amazon. It also suggested that a slight reduction in rainfall would kill many trees directly, not just by contributing to more fires.
It said: “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state. It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas.”
Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at Leeds University who specialises in tropical forest ecology, described the section of Rowell and Moore’s report predicting the potential destruction of large swathes of rainforest as “a mess”.
“The Nature paper is about the interactions of logging damage, fire and periodic droughts, all extremely important in understanding the vulnerability of Amazon forest to drought, but is not related to the vulnerability of these forests to reductions in rainfall,” he said.
“In my opinion the Rowell and Moore report should not have been cited; it contains no primary research data.”
WWF said it prided itself on the accuracy of its reports and was investigating the latest concerns. “We have a team of people looking at this internationally,” said Keith Allott, its climate change campaigner.
Scientists such as Lewis are demanding that the IPCC ban the use of reports from pressure groups. They fear that environmental campaign groups are bound to cherry-pick the scientific literature that confirms their beliefs and ignore the rest.
{Laughing} You think?
It was exactly this process that lay behind the bogus claim that the Himalayan glaciers were likely to melt by 2035 — a suggestion that got into another WWF report and was then used by the IPCC.
Georg Kaser, a glaciologist who was a lead author on the last IPCC report, said: “Groups like WWF are not scientists and they are not professionally trained to manage data. They may have good intentions but it opens the way to mistakes.”
No. They purposely LIE to further their agendas.
Then this. Check this out. Activist-scientists cooked the books to foster alarm Lorne Gunter, Edmonton Journal Published: Sunday, January 31, 2010
I can't recall the wheels coming off the bus of any expert-driven hysteria as fast or as completely as they are now coming off the global-warming scare.
I suppose they must have came off faster from Y2K. At 12:00:01 AM on Jan. 1, 2000, when airliners didn't fall from the sky and power plants didn't shut down spontaneously or computers didn't freeze up all over the world, the air came out of the Y2K scare instantly. Billions had been spent on preventing that disaster-that-never-was up until midnight on the final day of 1999, then almost not a penny afterwards.
That is faster than the wheels are coming off the climate-change bus. But AGW -- anthropogenic global warming -- is a very close second.
News of the manipulations, distortions and frauds perpetrated to advance and preserve the environmentalists' cause celebre are so numerous and coming so fast, it's hard to keep up.
First, of course, there were the e-mails and computer files leaked from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) -one of a handful of climate-research centres around the world that are the pillars of the United Nations' claims about impending climate doom. The CRU leaks showed many of the world's leading climate scientists discussing how they could torque their research to show more recent warming than there has been, conceal their "tricks" from other scientists and government investigators, and pressure scientific journals not to publish reports by dissenting scientists.
Then a couple of weeks ago came the news that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN's climate-change arm, had based its most recent findings on Himalayan glacier melt on an old study that had never been peer-reviewed or even published and which was based entirely on the speculation (not research) of a single Indian scientist who now works at the environmental think-tank run by the head of the IPCC, economist Rajendra Pachauri.
This by itself wouldn't be devastating, except that the scientist in charge of the glacier chapter of the IPCC's latest assessment report (AR4) admitted he had known the melt estimate was wrong but had included it anyway because "we thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."
He just admitted it folks. It's not true, yet we put it in there to SCARE people. Scaryence. Not Science.
That's not climate science, it's environmental activism, pure and simple -- using misleading figures to whip up alarm and bring about political action.
Another revelation of malfeasance this week was the discovery that the chapter on Amazon rainforests in the IPCC's AR4, the one that included the often-repeated claim that 40 per cent of the forest is under imminent threat from climate change, was written not by climate scientists but by an policy analyst who works for environmental groups and a freelance environmental author. Like the glacier chapter, it was written not to present the latest dispassionate scientific data, but to present a propaganda case that would produce the policy outcome the UN and the IPCC want. It confirmed that the UN is a player for one side in the climate debate, not the source for object facts.
In all, so far, at least 16 major claims made in AR4 (the report for which the IPCC won a Nobel Prize) have been shown to have originated with environmental groups rather than scientists, including the claim that climate change is already making tornado, hurricanes, forest fires and floods worse.
This week, we also learned that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) may have been playing fast and loose with its own calculations of global average temperature. Among the four main repositories of global temperature records, GISS is the only one to show the Earth still warming during the past decade. Now two American climate researchers -- Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts -- believe they know why: Scientists at GISS may have been cherry-picking the weather stations they take their records from to increase global averages artificially.
The pair write that there was a "major" decline in the number of stations GISS scientists were taking readings from "and an increase in missing data from remaining stations, which occurred suddenly around 1990 ... a clear bias was found toward removing higher elevation, higher latitude, and rural stations -- the cooler stations -- during this culling process." The pre-1990 temperature records, though, continued to include these cooler stations. These changes tended to make temperatures before 1990 appear extra-cool and those after 1990 extra-warm.
This probably shouldn't surprise -- GISS is run by James Hansen, the scientist who first set off the global-warming scare in 1988 and who is an adviser to former U.S. vice-president Al Gore.
Hansen has testified in court on behalf of eco-vandals charged with damaging a British power plant, insisting they are guilty of no crime because they were acting in defence of humanity and he has called coal trains "death trains" and coal-fired power plants "factories of death."
Again, those are the words of an activist, not a scientist.
Does all this prove global warming is a hoax?
I believe it does.
But at the least, it shows the science is far from settled.
It IS a Hoax. Nothing more and nothing less. A giant SCAM. Be right back with Part Two.
Peter
Sources:
Times Online - UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim
National Post - Activist-scientists cooked the books to foster
UK Guardian - Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege
UK Daily Mail- Leaked emails reveal that 'climategate' scientist 'hid' flaws in key global warming data
Canadian National Post - Wheels fall off global-warming hysteria
AFP - Netherlands adds to UN climate report controversy
Hey folks,
This whole thing has just become silly. Seriously. Everyday something new comes out about this SCAM. At this point, the IPCC is nothing more than a Saturday Night Live skit. I can see it now."We have released our new report to say that the World is at great risk. Evil people from America, uh, we mean, uh, everywhere, is destroying the planet. CO2 is kill us all. But it is not to late. If America, uh, everyone, does exactly what we say, and give their money away to us, we can save the planet."
OK. What about the fact that we learned all these Emails of the Leaders of the Chicken Little Crowds have been LYING. That they have been telling each other to cover up and hide the fact we are actually Cooling?
"Well, forget that. Means nothing. Why do you think we changed it to Climate Change instead of Global Warming?"
What about the fact we learned that all those measuring posts have been MOVED? To make it appear that we are still warming and the ice is still melting.
"Uh, never mind that. Uh, just accept what we are telling you."
OK. what about the fact that Himalayan Glacier Melt is bogus? It was based on an old study that had never been peer-reviewed or even published, which was based entirely on the speculation of a single Indian Scientist who now works at the Environmental group run by the head of the IPCC, Economist Rajendra Pachauri?
"Never mind that either. Uh, you can not disregard the whole report on just a few minor irregularities."
A few? 16 of your "Facts" have been proven to come from Envionut Groups, NOT real Scientists, and they are FALSE. Not to mention there is NO real science backing ANYTHING?
"Shut up. Just believe what we tell you. We will make you. This new Government of yours is on our side and they are working on creating laws that will FORCE you to just do whatever we say, as long as we say it's for the good of the planet."
Remember just as they we going into Copenhagen, some were saying we only had 10 months to halt "Climate Change." I actually think that they called it Global Warming. So what did they achieve at Copenhagen? A signed agreement to talk more about it in 12. {Laughing} Not to mention a "Carbon Footprint" in the 12-day conference created 40,584 tons of CO2 equivalents. The same amount as the Carbon Emissions of Morocco in 2006.
Ten years, Twenty, oh, uh, in another Twenty, uh by 2050, uh? It's all BOGUS. Snowmageddon is happening as we speak. Global Warming? Here is just SOME of what has come out this week. Times Online - UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim by Jonathan LeakeA STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.
The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.
This is the third time in as many weeks that serious doubts have been raised over the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. Two weeks ago, after reports in The Sunday Times, it was forced to retract a warning that climate change was likely to melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. That warning was also based on claims in a WWF report.
The IPCC has been put on the defensive as well over its claims that climate change may be increasing the severity and frequency of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.
Where are they?
This weekend Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, was fighting to keep his job after a barrage of criticism.
Scientists fear the controversies will be used by climate change sceptics to sway public opinion to ignore global warming — even though the fundamental science, that greenhouse gases can heat the world, remains strong.
{Sigh} It's ALL BS. This is pathetic "fundamental science, that greenhouse gases can heat the world, remains strong."Notice it does not say the world IS. It says the theory of "green House Gases to have the ability to heat the globe, is fundamental. That is like me saying, Science says that the Volcano, if it erupts, can and WILL destroy everything in it's path. So give me money so I can figure out a way to prevent that. The Science is strong, but the Volcano is NOT erupting, nor is it going to any time soon. Kind of like old tribes of people sacrificing to the Volcano gods. Right? Is that what we should be doing now with the GW gods?
The latest controversy originates in a report called A Global Review of Forest Fires, which WWF published in 2000. It was commissioned from Andrew Rowell, a freelance journalist and green campaigner who has worked for Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and anti-smoking organisations. The second author was Peter Moore, a campaigner and policy analyst with WWF.
In their report they suggested that “up to 40% of Brazilian rainforest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall” but made clear that this was because drier forests were more likely to catch fire.
The IPCC report picked up this reference but expanded it to cover the whole Amazon. It also suggested that a slight reduction in rainfall would kill many trees directly, not just by contributing to more fires.
It said: “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state. It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas.”
Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at Leeds University who specialises in tropical forest ecology, described the section of Rowell and Moore’s report predicting the potential destruction of large swathes of rainforest as “a mess”.
“The Nature paper is about the interactions of logging damage, fire and periodic droughts, all extremely important in understanding the vulnerability of Amazon forest to drought, but is not related to the vulnerability of these forests to reductions in rainfall,” he said.
“In my opinion the Rowell and Moore report should not have been cited; it contains no primary research data.”
WWF said it prided itself on the accuracy of its reports and was investigating the latest concerns. “We have a team of people looking at this internationally,” said Keith Allott, its climate change campaigner.
Scientists such as Lewis are demanding that the IPCC ban the use of reports from pressure groups. They fear that environmental campaign groups are bound to cherry-pick the scientific literature that confirms their beliefs and ignore the rest.
{Laughing} You think?
It was exactly this process that lay behind the bogus claim that the Himalayan glaciers were likely to melt by 2035 — a suggestion that got into another WWF report and was then used by the IPCC.
Georg Kaser, a glaciologist who was a lead author on the last IPCC report, said: “Groups like WWF are not scientists and they are not professionally trained to manage data. They may have good intentions but it opens the way to mistakes.”
No. They purposely LIE to further their agendas.
Then this. Check this out. Activist-scientists cooked the books to foster alarm Lorne Gunter, Edmonton Journal Published: Sunday, January 31, 2010
I can't recall the wheels coming off the bus of any expert-driven hysteria as fast or as completely as they are now coming off the global-warming scare.
I suppose they must have came off faster from Y2K. At 12:00:01 AM on Jan. 1, 2000, when airliners didn't fall from the sky and power plants didn't shut down spontaneously or computers didn't freeze up all over the world, the air came out of the Y2K scare instantly. Billions had been spent on preventing that disaster-that-never-was up until midnight on the final day of 1999, then almost not a penny afterwards.
That is faster than the wheels are coming off the climate-change bus. But AGW -- anthropogenic global warming -- is a very close second.
News of the manipulations, distortions and frauds perpetrated to advance and preserve the environmentalists' cause celebre are so numerous and coming so fast, it's hard to keep up.
First, of course, there were the e-mails and computer files leaked from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) -one of a handful of climate-research centres around the world that are the pillars of the United Nations' claims about impending climate doom. The CRU leaks showed many of the world's leading climate scientists discussing how they could torque their research to show more recent warming than there has been, conceal their "tricks" from other scientists and government investigators, and pressure scientific journals not to publish reports by dissenting scientists.
Then a couple of weeks ago came the news that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN's climate-change arm, had based its most recent findings on Himalayan glacier melt on an old study that had never been peer-reviewed or even published and which was based entirely on the speculation (not research) of a single Indian scientist who now works at the environmental think-tank run by the head of the IPCC, economist Rajendra Pachauri.This by itself wouldn't be devastating, except that the scientist in charge of the glacier chapter of the IPCC's latest assessment report (AR4) admitted he had known the melt estimate was wrong but had included it anyway because "we thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."
He just admitted it folks. It's not true, yet we put it in there to SCARE people. Scaryence. Not Science.
That's not climate science, it's environmental activism, pure and simple -- using misleading figures to whip up alarm and bring about political action.
Another revelation of malfeasance this week was the discovery that the chapter on Amazon rainforests in the IPCC's AR4, the one that included the often-repeated claim that 40 per cent of the forest is under imminent threat from climate change, was written not by climate scientists but by an policy analyst who works for environmental groups and a freelance environmental author. Like the glacier chapter, it was written not to present the latest dispassionate scientific data, but to present a propaganda case that would produce the policy outcome the UN and the IPCC want. It confirmed that the UN is a player for one side in the climate debate, not the source for object facts.
In all, so far, at least 16 major claims made in AR4 (the report for which the IPCC won a Nobel Prize) have been shown to have originated with environmental groups rather than scientists, including the claim that climate change is already making tornado, hurricanes, forest fires and floods worse.
This week, we also learned that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) may have been playing fast and loose with its own calculations of global average temperature. Among the four main repositories of global temperature records, GISS is the only one to show the Earth still warming during the past decade. Now two American climate researchers -- Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts -- believe they know why: Scientists at GISS may have been cherry-picking the weather stations they take their records from to increase global averages artificially.
The pair write that there was a "major" decline in the number of stations GISS scientists were taking readings from "and an increase in missing data from remaining stations, which occurred suddenly around 1990 ... a clear bias was found toward removing higher elevation, higher latitude, and rural stations -- the cooler stations -- during this culling process." The pre-1990 temperature records, though, continued to include these cooler stations. These changes tended to make temperatures before 1990 appear extra-cool and those after 1990 extra-warm.
This probably shouldn't surprise -- GISS is run by James Hansen, the scientist who first set off the global-warming scare in 1988 and who is an adviser to former U.S. vice-president Al Gore.
Hansen has testified in court on behalf of eco-vandals charged with damaging a British power plant, insisting they are guilty of no crime because they were acting in defence of humanity and he has called coal trains "death trains" and coal-fired power plants "factories of death."
Again, those are the words of an activist, not a scientist.
Does all this prove global warming is a hoax?
I believe it does.
But at the least, it shows the science is far from settled.
It IS a Hoax. Nothing more and nothing less. A giant SCAM. Be right back with Part Two.
Peter
Sources:
Times Online - UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim
National Post - Activist-scientists cooked the books to foster
UK Guardian - Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege
UK Daily Mail- Leaked emails reveal that 'climategate' scientist 'hid' flaws in key global warming data
Canadian National Post - Wheels fall off global-warming hysteria
AFP - Netherlands adds to UN climate report controversy
4 comments:
Ever been to Glacier National Park? I've been every year for the last 25 years (sometimes multiple times). I used to go glaciating. (skiing down glaciers in your sneakers). Now, when I take my kids to Glacier we throw rocks where there used to be 20 feet of ice and snow - in July. In less than a generation this has happened. While I am not a scientist and don't pretend to know why the climate changes (CLIMATE CHANGE) - huge amounts of ice melting (fresh water) into salt water oceans, affecting the currents could (IS) one known influence on CLIMATE CHANGE. Again, another FACT you may or may not wish to consider. This melting just seems like it's happened a little bit faster than in a normal cycle. Could be God just decided to melt ice a little faster this time around. Maybe he found a new ice melting method he's trying out. I'm sure it has nothing to do with humans. We don't affect anything. We're just here. We don't use anything. We don't destroy anything. We don't pollute anything. We don't do anything but lay around like big slugs.
And who cares if DC gets 2 feet of snow? Or there's 3 inches of snow in Atlanta. It's about the inter-mountain west, brother. The rapid changing climate (CLIMATE CHANGE) in this region is very soon going to have a huge impact on our nation's economy (I do know you care a lot about money). Without the snowpacks and the resulting snow melts we need for the agriculture and cattle industries - well, they just won't exist. Rivers and fresh water lakes will dry up making irrigation impossible, destroying a whole region's livelyhood. Thanks for caring, ignoramus. As long as you got what you need... God and money.
Mine eyes have seen it.
Hey Pete,
Climate changes Daily. We go through cycles. Some last seasons, some years, some decades. We warm, cool, have bad Winters, Warm Winters, Heavy Rainy Summers, dry ones ETC. Over the years, {Hundreds, Thousands, even Millions} we have green areas full of life that becomes frozen and desolate. We have Desolate areas that become green and full of life. It is NATURAL.
I'll tell ya some thing else "Brother" I'm all for recycling. I'm all for "Greener Technologies." We only have so much space and we are increasing in our usage of such space yearly. We DO need to find move inventive ways to care for the Earth, so that we can live in harmony with it as long as we are both still here. But WE could not destroy it if we wanted to.
If we detonated EVERY nuclear bomb we have, we would made it unsustainable for US to continue to be here for now, but in time, the Earth would heal, and life would return. I would love to leave the Earth cleaner and better than it was when I got here, so that Josh, and his children will have no worries. Yet, I want him to have every opportunity that we had before him. I do not want him living in a tent and riding a Huffy, while the Rich languish in their Mansions and Steak every night. All in the name of a scam.
We really can use what runs the World Economy, Drill here and now, keep Energy cost affordable for all, AND seek Alternative energy sources AT THE SAME TIME.
I've posted my plan in the past. Start small. one town Solar. One Wind, ETC. See what works in everyday application. Then go two towns. A City. Abandoned that witch fails, move on to something else. But let's not destroy what we not only need, but KNOW works, for something that is not even close to being realized. To do so in the name of a SCAM is ridiculous. Not to mention, Cap and Tax, Carbon Credits, and Obamacare, has NOTHING to do with saving the planet, nor healthcare. It is ALL about power control and money.
Peter
Climate changes Daily
Huh? Climate doesn't change daily. The weather changes daily. The Mojave desert is a dry climate. The Amazon is a wet climate. These climates do not change daily.
Over the years, {Hundreds, Thousands, even Millions}
I'm confused. I thought the earth was 4,000 years old.
It is NATURAL.
Over the years, {Hundreds, Thousands, even Millions}
It's NOT NATURAL for this change to happen over a decade. You just said it. It happens over hundreds and thousands of years. You are totally contradicting yourself.
Huh? Climate doesn't change daily. The weather changes daily. The Mojave desert is a dry climate. The Amazon is a wet climate. These climates do not change daily.
The Weather and Climate are inherently linked.
Over the years, {Hundreds, Thousands, even Millions}
I'm confused. I thought the earth was 4,000 years old.
When did I ever say that?
It is NATURAL.
Over the years, {Hundreds, Thousands, even Millions}
It's NOT NATURAL for this change to happen over a decade. You just said it. It happens over hundreds and thousands of years. You are totally contradicting yourself.
CYCLES. You know, just back in the 70s, they we calling for a new Ice Age. Before that it was Global Warming. Now, it's Global Warming again. Natural Cycles. Warming, cooling. BAD Hurricane season, no storms really to mention. Record cold, broken record. Record Heat, broken record. Heavy rain, dry. It is all Natural.
When the Climate gets a little warmer, things happen. When it gets a little cooler, things happen.
The problem with Man-MADE Climate change is that NONE of it is correct. It's all made up. None of the "facts" that the PAID experts have put out there are proven nor founded in reality. The whole thing is a SCAM. Sorry.
Peter
Post a Comment