Archive for the ‘global warming’ Category
This says a lot: Global Warming!
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.”
What are we going to do!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Someone Who Doesn’t Believe the Hype of a Failed Senator from Tennessee and the Intellectual Elite in Hollywood
PS–If Global Warming is a Political Hoax, then I think Al Gore should have to give back his Oscar or Emmy or whatever stupid award he was given–Oh, yeah, the Nobel.
Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun’s effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures.
If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.
I did put a link on the previous post, and then decided to go ahead and put the youtube video here. It was too good to pass over. It is a bit older, but it is hilarious. Enjoy this contribution to Global Warming Education.
For some reason the ‘God is not sovereign’ global warming, a-religious left crowd continues to push an agenda of fear, hype, and political correctness on otherwise peaceful, unsuspecting people. Children are also suffering mightily under the sway of fear-mongers and the a-religious left as they are continually indoctrinated by their teachers about what will happen to the earth if the student leaves a light on too long or continues to use a regular light bulb in his reading lamp or rides in a car instead of walking. (And other scientists continue to raise the specter of the dangers of bovine flatulence. We must beware! Jeff over at atheocracy has some great ideas for cow-tipping, perhaps that would aid in the quieting of their rear-ends. I personally think the best way to end bovine flatulence is by eating more cows.) But I digress…
I came across another story tonight about one Dr William Gray who is, evidently, “one of the world’s foremost meteorologists.” You should read the article in its entirety, but I want to note a couple of the more salient points the Dr made in a recent speech at the University of North Carolina. I will note them for you in bullet-point fashion without comment:
- “We’re brainwashing our children,” said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. “They’re going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It’s ridiculous.”
- During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.
He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.
- “The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures,” Dr Gray said.
- “It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong,” he said. “But they also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out. I don’t care about grants.”
Funny, that. Here all along I thought scientists were interested in truth. Here all along I thought our children were being taught facts, not myths. Here all along I thought that I should do something to help those poor, stupid polar bears. Here all along I thought Al Gore was a real scientist, with no political agenda, who had a genuine concern for me and my family and, ultimately, for world peace. Here all along I thought Al Gore was really sincere in his concerns for the environment. And here.
Man, I have been duped. Here’s hoping that science can continue to correct itself. We should be thankful: Science has warned us the dangers of smoking too closely to a pasture. For that we can be thankful!
Czech President Vaclav Klaus had this to say about Al Gore’s recent Nobel Peace Prize win:
“The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct,” the statement said. “It rather seems that Gore’s doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace.”
I think the relationship between Al Gore’s life in general and world peace is unclear and indistinct. But That’s OK. Al Gore is an A-1 scientist! I’ll bet he could shed some light on the whole creation/evolution debate. I’m glad this Czech President is honest. Perhaps if we had a few politicians who were…
This morning, in my post about Al Gore’s ‘win’ of a Nobel Prize, I compared his ‘win’ with a student caught smoking and being awarded a Student of the Week prize, and an athlete winning at the Olympics after cheating, and a murderer being awarded celebrity status.
Well, it turns out that others were thinking along the same lines: Think Tank: Withdraw Gore Film’s Oscar. Says the article:
On the eve of Al Gore’s award of the Nobel Peace Prize, a think tank wrote the president of the Academy Awards asking that the Oscar given to his film “An Inconvenient Truth” be taken back in response to a British High Court ruling that found 11 serious inaccuracies in the documentary.
Dr. Muriel Newman, director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, told Academy President Sid Ganis and Executive Director Bruce Davis “the situation is not unlike that confronting sports bodies when their sports stars are found to be drug cheats.”
“In such cases, the sportsmen and women are stripped of their medals and titles, with the next place-getter elevated,” she said, according the Australian Associated Press. “While this is an extremely unpleasant duty, it is necessary if the integrity of competitive sport is to be protected.
Here’s how significant the Nobel Prize is: Jimmy Carter also won it! (And, didn’t Yassir Arafat also win one?) Thank God that the British High Court saw through this nonsense and did the right thing.
There’s this fella who visits here sometimes who, every time he visits, constantly tries to provoke me with his ‘insightful’ and ‘intellectual’ comments about the intelligentsia of this world. One day he threw up something to the effect of, “So, all those Nobel Prize winning scientists are wrong about evolution?” I responded, in a very carefully thought out sentence, “Yes.”
Well, now we have Al Gore to include in that mix of ‘scientific elite’ whose Nobel Prizes are their validation and authority. Yes, this is the same Al Gore who lost his only presidential bid. Strangely enough, this newest Nobel Prize winner won his award on the back of lies:
- The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
- The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
- The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
- The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
- The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
- The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
- The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
- The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
- The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
You can also read here for more, and here, and here, and here, and here (at this last link, there are links to several other resources you can access). So, simply put, what we are learning is that when we lie we should be rewarded! Said Al Gore, loser of his only presidential bid:
“We face a true planetary emergency,” Gore said. “The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”
Global Warming has to be a moral issue and a spiritual challenge, mustn’t it, because it certainly isn’t a ‘scientific’ issue! Isn’t this the only way to really prick our consciences and make us ‘do the right thing’? (Except among atheists who have no ‘spirituality’ to speak of.) Al Gore is truly a man among men after winning both an Oscar and a Nobel–but losing the presidency. If this isn’t a moral issue or a spiritual challenge, aren’t we all doomed? I think we will be (doomed that is) because there are very few people who take Al Gore’s ‘science’ as anything meaningful or authoritative or even ‘scientific’. His ‘science’ is a film that first won an Oscar which means that it was first entertainment. Does anyone take his ‘science’ seriously?
I work part time at one of our local schools. Recently, one of the other teacher aids caught a student smoking on school property. The student, however, received no detention, no suspension, no visit from the local PD. Ironically, this past week, she was named ‘student of the week.’
So here’s what we can learn from these two stories. First, you can make a film full of political propaganda that people across the board, from a variety of disciplines, recognize as hype and, not to put too fine a point on it, lies, and you can win a Nobel Prize (and an Oscar to boot!) Then, because you have won a Nobel Prize people will go around touting that ‘win’ as something significant, and the person who ‘won’ as someone we should listen to. Also, you can be caught breaking not just a school rule but a state law which bans smoking practically every where on the planet, and be honored as ‘student of the week’.
It’s no wonder Al Gore ‘won’ (bought?) this prize. This sort of thinking has been ingrained in people’s heads from day one: Break the law, win an award; lie, win a prize; cheat, win an Olympic race; murder, be excused. When are people going to stop rewarding others for doing the wrong thing? People expect to be rewarded for doing the wrong thing. And now, many people expect that since Al Gore has ‘won’ a Nobel Prize that he should be ushered into the White House in 2008. His Nobel gives him the sort of credibility he could never have after being associated with Clinton for eight years. Now, Al Gore is worthy of the White House! He is the creme-de-la-creme of the ‘scientifice elite’ in this world! Thankfully, humble Al has so far rejected all overtures for a White House bid. But the truth is, perhaps inconveniently, Gore needed to reinvent himself after his disastrous eight years with Clinton and his first failed presidential bid.
I wish things had been different when I was growing up in the United States. When, as a boy, I lied, my mom would pepper my tongue or soap my mouth. Now when people lie they are awarded Nobel Prizes. I got gypped!
I just heard Rush Limbaugh say, “You cannot believe in the God of creation and believe in global warming.” Interesting…
Anyhow, here’s another story about the farce of global warming.
Here’s a preview:
The study by the Danish National Space Center rebuts a July study by UK scientists who allege there has not been a solar-climate link in the past 20 years.
The Danish researchers, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, contend the UK study erroneously relies on surface air temperature, which, they say, “does not respond to the solar cycle.”
Strange there is so much dissension among scientists concerning exactly what is going on in the world.
I have posted many things about the so-called warming of the globe, the causes, and the hysteria. Here’s an interesting story at WND that will likely cause me to subscribe to Science magazine as soon as possible so that I can read the study.
A new peer-reviewed scientific study counters a major premise of global warming theory, concluding carbon dioxide did not end the last ice age
The study, led by University of Southern California geologist Lowell Stott, concluded deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before the rise in atmospheric CO2, which would rule out the greenhouse gas as the main agent of the meltdown.
“There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said Stott. “You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.”
The study will be published in the next issue of Science magazine.
I’m going to subscribe to science just so I can read this story. At this juncture, I don’t know what caused the end of the ‘ice age’, but I’m glad it did. I rather like our climate. Here’s to hope that man is the not the root of all evil after all! I wonder how long before this scientist is run out of his job?
In the story headlined by these words, “Pope to Make Climate Action a Moral Obligation“, we read these words:
The Pope is expected to use his first address to the United Nations to deliver a powerful warning over climate change in a move to adopt protection of the environment as a “moral” cause for the Catholic Church and its billion-strong following.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, head of the Catholic Church in the UK, said last night: “This is a crucial issue both today and for all future generations. We are the stewards of creation and we need to take that responsibility seriously and co-operate to care for the created world.”
Now, here’s what I wonder. Will the pope make this moral obligation an obligation for all nations in the world? Why is this a ‘crucial issue’? I wonder if the pope will make this a mandatory obligation for, say, China? Russia? Why is it that whenever I hear anyone say anything about global warming I only hear about what Americans are supposed to be doing about it?
Does the Chinese government require their citizens to buy ‘carbon credits’? Do the Russians recycle? Do Canadians drive cars that are ‘hybrid’ (which spare absolutely no energy at all)? Are there any other countries in the world creating those dangerous green house gasses or is the United States the only nation in the world without enough trees?
I thought the pope was the head of the Catholic Church? Why doesn’t the pope stick to things that matter? This pope, like his predecessors, is unbelievably arrogant. What right does he have to speak for anyone, to anyone, about this? This is an angry post because I get so tired of this stupidity. Why doesn’t the pope take some of all that money that the Catholic Church has and use it to do something meaningful (besides paying off the people abused by priests and jet-setting around the world delivering up his ‘thus sayeth the Lord’ about global warming?) Does he have nothing better to do?
Isn’t one Al Gore in this world enough?
“Benedict is the spiritual head of 19 per cent of the world’s population and a highly respected figure. If the Pope’s words are taken on board by his community that is one big constituency for change and could well turn the tide on climate change and environmental degradation.”
I agree: I demand right now that the sun stop shining. Oh wait. It’s night. OK. I’ll start tomorrow. (At 8:15 PM tonight, it was 63 degrees Fahrenheit where I was at.) I read an email from an acquaintance who lives in FLA who says that a local radio personality was complaining about the unusually cold weather; it was 70 degrees.) I wish the Pope would stay in Rome.
We have been warned and warned and warned that the current spate of warm temperatures has been caused, not entirely, but mostly by man. Has this always been the case?
Climate Change: Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.
On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.” It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man’s use of fossil fuels.
The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in “the next 50 years” fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees.
Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, “could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
The editorial goes on to suggest that perhaps all the hubbub over ‘global warming’ is merely a politically motivated, politically charged idea. It also grants that people have the right to change their mind, but it wonders if the change of mind was based on ‘empirical evidence’ (the editorial is referring to James Hansen’s recent change of mind). The editorial says:
People can change their positions based on new information or by taking a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There’s nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is arrived at honestly.
But what about political hypocrisy? It’s clear that Hansen is as much a political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?
The thing for me is: what is the motivation behind all this madness? What, honestly, are we supposed to do about global warming? Are we supposed to make the sun cool down? Regardless of what ‘we contribute’ the earth still warms up because of the Sun beating down on this planet. Are we to tell the sun to stop?
I think people need to stop worrying so much about it because mostly I think this is a politically motivated problem. I’m willing to bet that when George Bush is no longer president it will all go away (unless of course another republican wins the presidency).
Scientists: What are we to do? Will it get warmer? Will it get chillier? What are we to do? Help us scientists, you with so many answers! Perhaps there is some evolutionary way we can stem the tide of this onslaught from that dastardly sun.
Here’s how the world of ‘science’ wishes to indoctrinate our children: They lie. That’s right. See this story about The Down to Earth Guide to Global Warming.
But Robert Ferguson, president of the Science and Public Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., published findings today that reveal a “glaring scientific error.”
On page 18 of “The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming,” the book has a graph accompanied by the statement, “The more the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature climbed. The less carbon dioxide, the more the temperature fell.”
And there’s more!
“The authors mislabeled the blue curve as temperature and mislabeled the red curve as CO2 concentration,” he explained.
Ferguson said the David-Gordon “manipulation” is critical because the central premise of the book argues CO2 drives temperature, “yet the ice core data clearly reveal temperature increases generally precede increasing CO2 by several hundred to a few thousand years.”
“This fact may have been too inconvenient for David, who instead presented young readers with an astoundingly irresponsible falsehood,” Ferguson said. “Parents and teachers of these children should be concerned.”
What I wonder is this, if the evidence is so overwhelmingly true, why resort to lies? Why, oh science, why?
And there’s more!
Ferguson argues the peer-reviewed literature is “unanimous” in finding that in climate records CO2 changes historically have followed temperature changes and cannot have caused them.
“The book is mischievous for concluding that this deceptive graph has anything to do with ‘discovering’ a link between additional CO2 concentrations and ‘global warming,’” Ferguson declares.
Well, I for one am very concerned about this. How can we possibly trust science if they must resort to lies to support their case? How can I trust them on such serious issues as cow flatulence and polar bear populations? How can I trust science about my great-grandparents’ (several times over) evolutionary links? My entire world has been shaken. I’m just not sure if I can believe in evolution any more! I’m gonna have to rethink it all. The lie has been revealed!
PS–The Down to Earth Guide to Global Warming is co-authored by Laurie David and Cambria Gordon. It is published by Scholastic and probably costs way too much money, but should help David and Cambria firm up their retirement funds because there are people who will buy it. I also imagine that we will soon see a plethora of publishing house apologies for the ‘oversight’ and explanations about how the ‘image was accidentally reversed by a cross-eyed machine operator’ who had a grudge against David. We will probably also learn that he was recently fired from his job after 58 years of faithful service.
And another question: What scientific credentials does Laurie David have that she can write such a book? These people are so unbelievably full of themselves.
There’s even a forum for the book!
And biographies of the authors!
You can buy the book from amazon for an amazingly low price of $10.87!
Uh, I should point out that neither David nor Gordon are scientists. They are activists. Neither, so far as my research is concerned, has a degree in any scientific field of study. Gordon did write a book title: Fifty Nifty Crafts to Make With Things Around the House. David once traveled around on a ‘biodiesel tour bus.’ This makes both of them authorities. So we should really start taking global warming seriously.
Here are a few stories that I found interesting. You might find them interesting too!
First, according to new research, Neanderthals weren’t wiped out because of a dramatic climate change.
A study published in the Sept. 13 issue of the journal Nature suggests abrupt global cooling was not the final calamity that wiped out Neanderthals.
The study does not, however, offer any direct clues about what did finally kill off the Neanderthals. (Climate)
I think this is encouraging because if cold weather didn’t kill Neanderthals, then perhaps we moderns will be able to survive the impending heat waves of Global Warming. Humans (or any variations of humans) are remarkably adept at surviving calamities that other beasts cannot survive.
Then there’s this: (Climate Cuts)
WASHINGTON — The government’s climate change research is threatened by spending cuts that will reduce scientists’ observations from space and on the ground, a study says.
A major problem, the National Research Council said Thursday, is the program director’s lack of authority to organize spending and research among the 13 different agencies that study the impacts of climate.
Looks like it’s tough luck for the polar bears. *Sniff*
And here’s the most important new of all (Cow Flatulence)
Eating less meat could help slow global warming by reducing the number of livestock and thereby decreasing the amount of methane flatulence from the animals, scientists said on Thursday.
In a special energy and health series of the medical journal The Lancet, experts said people should eat fewer steaks and hamburgers. Reducing global red meat consumption by 10 percent, they said, would cut the gases emitted by cows, sheep and goats that contribute to global warming.
I would think just the opposite. I would think that if we ate more cows there would be less cows. What are we going to do when the the cow population starts running amok? I cannot believe this is serious science. I cannot believe that this is serious journalism.
And finally (Cataclysm)
Astronomers have spotted a planet that has survived the massive ballooning of its parent star, providing the first optimistic evidence for the long-term survival of Earth.The discovery, detailed in the Sept. 13 issue of the journal Nature, could motivate other scientists to look for similar red giant survivors.That in turn could eventually lead to an answer to one of astronomers’ favorite questions: Will Earth survive the sun’s swelling when it goes through its own red giant phase in a few billion years?
Well, seriously, in a few billion years? I guess we had better start worrying about this now then, right? I mean, what are our children going to do with this serious condition we have left them in a few billion years? We had better start hoping that we have evolved out of our current state when the sun starts expanding in a few billion years. We better get some scientists on special space ships to fly out to the sun and tell it to give us an extra billion years or so that we can begin building shelters! Or maybe we need to ask the sun, nicely, if it will just not go through a red giant phase in a few billion years.
As they said:
“For sure this discovery will move other people to look for other similar systems, so in a few years we will have much stronger constraints for the models,” Silvotti said. “At that point, it will be possible to do relatively good models for what happens to the planets in general in the red giant phase. So in the end we might know what will happen to Earth.”
Here’s what Peter wrote:
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. 11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. (2 Peter 3:10-13, NIV)
But there is hope: His Name is Jesus. Instead of worrying about things we cannot change, things we cannot stop, things we cannot in the least bit of a way control, let’s listen to Jesus, the only hope we have here on earth. He is the only Way.
Soli Deo Gloria!
I love stories like this not because it justifies anything that I have said or believe, but precisely because it shows how much people don’t know. I don’t talk politics here often, in fact, maybe never, but anyone with an ounce of intellectual integrity has to admit that Al Gore is about as big a joke as there is when it comes to his ideas on how to preserve the earth, global warming, and the internet. (Well, I’d rank Leo DiCaprio up there too. Poor kid, he went from the cute kid on Growing Pains to big time hollywood loser in no time flat. That’s too bad.)
Anyhow….as one person noted well, this recent revelation only demonstrates that there is no real scientific consensue on the cause of global warming, not whether or not the globe is actually warming. Read here. For a taste:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance. “This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
What I am glad for is this: There are scientists who take their jobs seriously and are willing to risk their names and necks (to left-wing, liberal jihad) to give both sides of the story. I’m glad there are scientists who are willing to do this.
But there’s one thing I don’t understand. How do we know who to believe? If one scientist, with great credentials says, “Yes, man put up too many Burger Kings and Wal-Marts and caused global warming,” and another scientist, with equally impressive credentials says, “No, global warming was caused by sunspot cycles,” how are we to know who to believe? Does one side or the other have an agenda? Do both have an agenda? Does someone stand to profit from the proliferation of such information? (Why does Al Gore fly around in that big ol jet-airliner?)
Perhaps there is a scientist among us simple folk, us un-scientific folk, who can help us understand who and what to believe? And how can we believe without consensus? And how can there be a consensus when so many scientists with good credentials disagree about so many things? (I noticed in the essay the words ‘peer-reviewed’ several times.) Jon, where are you when I need you most!?
In other related, but unrelated news, we now have to worry about polar bears. Yes, I’m afraid that the WWF (not the World Wrestling Federation; they are now the WWE) has issued a warning that is somewhat related to the whole global warming thing:
Geneva – Polar bears could die out by 2050, the WWF environment organization warned Tuesday following a new US study. The report by the US Geological Survey predicts that climate change and melting sea ice could drive two thirds of the creatures to extinction by mid-century, which WWF said was “almost certainly an underestimate.”
The WWF insists the reality is even worse than the study suggests as sea-ice loss was consistently underestimated by current computer models.
“Politicians are still fiddling at the edges while the Arctic succumbs to global warming; but in the meantime, they are sending one of the world’s greatest species on its way to extinction,” added Hamilton. [emphasis mine--jerry.]
So a note to all you politicians: Instead of trying to keep humanity alive until 2050, you ought to be doing something about the Polar Bears! Don’t you understand that it is the polar bears that matter! SAVE THE POLAR BEARS! I don’t understand why this is so difficult for you to understand. Look, if all the politicians would shut up and quit talking so much, perhaps there wouldn’t be so much hot air in the world and then those polar ice caps wouldn’t be melting so much and depriving polar bears of life. (I saw some polar bears at a zoo one time and they seemed to be enjoying the mild climate, and the easy food quite well.)
Or, could we blame it on computers…
“We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events,” said co-author Singer. “On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted.” [See the link above to the first article; emphasis mine--jerry.]
Maybe we should get rid of computers, scientists, and politicians and then the rest of us could live our lives in peace the way God intended us to. I’m tired of all these folks who think they hold power doing nothing but trying to scare up another problem for us to worry about each day. Why don’t they just shut up?!
PS–Also try: Cracker Boy on Polar Bears.
PPS–How can two people look at exactly the same ‘evidence’ and come to conclusions that are night and day? I have to admit here that I need not a little help from some of my more scientifically inclined visitors.