Al Gore's Tennessee Home Wasting Electricity

[hugo]

I actually think it is far more ridiculously stupid to argue against any kind of mitigation when we are facing potentially catastrophic circumstances.

And like I said, the economy has already shat itself. Putting money into green solutions can easily be made part of a stimulus package.

The problem I see is that the West cannot reduce the potential of catastophic events without holding India, China and the developing world to higher standards. Currently all proposals I have seen will increase energy costs in the West , energy costs are an input cost to businesses, and consequently feed the already growing exportation of jobs to the developing world while also putting a heavier financial burden on consumers. We would be better off building dikes. Of course, here in the US, unlike in France, our leftists are strongly opposed to the most efficient green energy and that is nuclear power.

Of course, there are good reasons why India and China would not be a party to Kyoto. http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/6878/1/335/?PrintableVersion=enabled

 

[Anna Perenna]

The problem I see is that the West cannot reduce the potential of catastophic events without holding India, China and the developing world to higher standards. Currently all proposals I have seen will increase energy costs in the West , energy costs are an input cost to businesses, and consequently feed the already growing exportation of jobs to the developing world while also putting a heavier financial burden on consumers. We would be better off building dikes. Of course, here in the US, unlike in France, our leftists are strongly opposed to the most efficient green energy and that is nuclear power.

Of course, there are good reasons why India and China would not be a party to Kyoto. Political Affairs Magazine - Energy, Global Warming and Development

There are some greenies here supposedly opposed to nuclear power, too - which on the surface is very disappointing to me. (I am a 'greenie' but I know nuclear power is about so much more than efficient energy - the radioactive isotopes produced at the nuclear reactor in NSW saved my mum's life)

However, when you read the fine print on the Green's political stance, you realise they are opposed to the current nuclear waste dumping processes and not the technology itself:

"The level of nuclear waste accumulating around the world presents a practically insurmountable problem to the nuclear industry. Despite billion of dollars of investment in various disposal options, the nuclear industry and governments have failed to come up with a feasible, safe and sustainable solution for managing nuclear wastes for the periods of time required. All countries involved in the production of this nuclear waste are pursuing locations "out of sight, out of mind". That includes Australia." - Bob Brown, Leader of the Australian Greens.

I agree that China and India need to be brought into the emissions-reduction effort, but that's no excuse for Australia and the USA NOT to make an effort.

 

[hugo]

While waste disposal is a problem with nuclear energy, competitive energy solutions also have their problems. Solar panels take up too much space,hydroelectric dams up rivers, wind turbines are a threat to birds. Currently, nuclear waste is being minimized through reprocessing and currently being stored though long term storage is a problem to be solved. Hydrogen fuel cell technology offers a glimmer of hope.

I just do not see a politically or economically feasible way to prevent increased carbon dioxide emissions in the next half century. I do not see the West being able to accomplish much acting unilaterally. Nor do I see the people of the developing world accepting that they cannot also have the "American" dream, an air conditioned home, a refrigerator and a two car garage.

I am back to building dikes.

 

[ImWithStupid]

The problem I see is that the West cannot reduce the potential of catastophic events without holding India, China and the developing world to higher standards. Currently all proposals I have seen will increase energy costs in the West , energy costs are an input cost to businesses, and consequently feed the already growing exportation of jobs to the developing world while also putting a heavier financial burden on consumers. We would be better off building dikes. Of course, here in the US, unlike in France, our leftists are strongly opposed to the most efficient green energy and that is nuclear power.

Of course, there are good reasons why India and China would not be a party to Kyoto. Political Affairs Magazine - Energy, Global Warming and Development

.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

While waste disposal is a problem with nuclear energy, competitive energy solutions also have their problems. Solar panels take up too much space,hydroelectric dams up rivers, wind turbines are a threat to birds. Currently, nuclear waste is being minimized through reprocessing and currently being stored though long term storage is a problem to be solved. Hydrogen fuel cell technology offers a glimmer of hope.

I just do not see a politically or economically feasible way to prevent increased carbon dioxide emissions in the next half century. I do not see the West being able to accomplish much acting unilaterally. Nor do I see the people of the developing world accepting that they cannot also have the "American" dream, an air conditioned home, a refrigerator and a two car garage.

I am back to building dikes.

Everything is political to the socialist.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Yes, I posted this video twice. It bears repeating, because as I said, we are arrogant to think that we can make a difference. The planet is an everchanging and evolving entity, George Carlin spells it out for you moonbats..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIWkg&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - George Carlin on Global Warming[/ame]

 

[Anna Perenna]

While waste disposal is a problem with nuclear energy, competitive energy solutions also have their problems. Solar panels take up too much space, hydroelectric dams up rivers, wind turbines are a threat to birds. Currently, nuclear waste is being minimized through reprocessing and currently being stored though long term storage is a problem to be solved. Hydrogen fuel cell technology offers a glimmer of hope.

Photovoltaic technology is also not as energy-efficient as some would hope or presume.

But that's not the point ..... we simply have to distinguish the most efficient and feasible energy system from what is on offer.

I just do not see a politically or economically feasible way to prevent increased carbon dioxide emissions in the next half century. I do not see the West being able to accomplish much acting unilaterally. Nor do I see the people of the developing world accepting that they cannot also have the "American" dream, an air conditioned home, a refrigerator and a two car garage.

Well, sitting around nay-saying is certainly not going to bring about change, so you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy with your words there.

Please don't assume that everyone wants the American dream, and frankly, it doesn't matter what you personally don't see.

Surely, what you should be concentrating on is the best 'plan of attack' - a good way to encourage the East to respond to the West is if we take initiative first, lead by example, show how possible it is, offer incentives and then apply pressure (politically and economically).

 

[ImWithStupid]

Global warming alarmists out in cold

Andrew Bolt
April 29, 2009 12:00am

IT'S snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever.
And that's just the news of the past week. Truly, it never rains but it pours - and all over our global warming alarmists.
Time's up for this absurd scaremongering. The fears are being contradicted by the facts, and more so by the week.
Doubt it? Then here's a test.
Name just three clear signs the planet is warming as the alarmists claim it should. Just three. Chances are your "proofs" are in fact on my list of 10 Top Myths about global warming. And if your "proofs" indeed turn out to be false, don't get angry with me.
Just ask yourself: Why do you still believe that man is heating the planet to hell? What evidence do you have?
So let's see if facts matter more to you than faith, and observations more than predictions.

MYTH 1
THE WORLD IS WARMING
Wrong. It is true the world did warm between 1975 and 1998, but even Professor David Karoly, one of our leading alarmists, admitted this week "temperatures have dropped" since - "both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites". In fact, the fall in temperatures from just 2002 has already wiped out half the warming our planet experienced last century. (Check data from Britain's Hadley Centre, NASA's Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre.)
Some experts, such as Karoly, claim this proves nothing and the world will soon start warming again. Others, such as Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University, point out that so many years of cooling already contradict the theory that man's rapidly increasing gases must drive up temperatures ever faster.
But that's all theory. The question I've asked is: What signs can you actually see of the man-made warming that the alarmists predicted?

MYTH 2
THE POLAR CAPS ARE MELTING
Wrong. The British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, last week confirmed ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years.
Long-term monitoring by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports the same: southern hemisphere ice has been expanding for decades.
As for the Arctic, wrong again.
The Arctic ice cap shrank badly two summers ago after years of steady decline, but has since largely recovered. Satellite data from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Centre this week shows the Arctic hasn't had this much April ice for at least seven years.
Norway's Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre says the ice is now within the standard deviation range for 1979 to 2007.

MYTH 3
WE'VE NEVER HAD SUCH A BAD DROUGHT
Wrong. A study released this month by the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre confirms not only that we've had worse droughts, but this Big Dry is not caused by "global warming", whether man-made or not.
As the university's press release says: "The causes of southeastern Australia's longest, most severe and damaging droughts have been discovered, with the surprise finding that they originate far away in the Indian Ocean.
"A team of Australian scientists has detailed for the first time how a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole - a variable and irregular cycle of warming and cooling of ocean water - dictates whether moisture-bearing winds are carried across the southern half of Australia."

MYTH 4
OUR CITIES HAVE NEVER BEEN HOTTER
Wrong. The alleged "record" temperature Melbourne set in January - 46.4 degrees - was in fact topped by the 47.2 degrees the city recorded in 1851. (See the Argus newspaper of February 8, 1851.)
And here's another curious thing: Despite all this warming we're alleged to have caused, Victoria's highest temperature on record remains the 50.7 degrees that hit Mildura 103 years ago.
South Australia's hottest day is still the 50.7 degrees Oodnadatta suffered 37 years ago. NSW's high is still the 50 degrees recorded 70 years ago.
What's more, not one of the world's seven continents has set a record high temperature since 1974. Europe's high remains the 50 degrees measured in Spain 128 years ago, before the invention of the first true car.

MYTH 5
THE SEAS ARE GETTING HOTTER
Wrong. If anything, the seas are getting colder. For five years, a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs has been deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries.
Warming believer Josh Willis, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, reluctantly concluded: "There has been a very slight cooling . . ."

CONTINUED...

 

[ImWithStupid]

MYTH 6
THE SEAS ARE RISING
Wrong. For almost three years, the seas have stopped rising, according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado.
That said, the seas have risen steadily and slowly for the past 10,000 years through natural warming, and will almost certainly resume soon.
But there is little sign of any accelerated rises, even off Tuvalu or the Maldives, islands often said to be most threatened with drowning.
Professor Nils-Axel Moerner, one of the world's most famous experts on sea levels, has studied the Maldives in particular and concluded there has been no net rise there for 1250 years.
Venice is still above water.

MYTH 7
CYCLONES ARE GETTING WORSE
Wrong. Ryan Maue of Florida State University recently measured the frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes and cyclones to compile an Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index.
His findings? The energy index is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.
The World Meteorological Organisation, in its latest statement on cyclones, said it was impossible to say if they were affected by man's gases: "Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point."

MYTH 8
THE GREAT BARRIER REEF IS DYING
Wrong. Yes, in 1999, Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, our leading reef alarmist and administrator of more than $30 million in warming grants, did claim the reef was threatened by warming, and much had turned white.
But he then had to admit it had made a "surprising" recovery.
Yes, in 2006 he again warned high temperatures meant "between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland's Great Barrier Reef could die within a month".
But he later admitted this bleaching had "minimal impact". Yes, in 2007 he again warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were bleaching the reef.
But this month fellow Queensland University researchers admitted in a study that reef coral had once more made a "spectacular recovery", with "abundant corals re-established in a single year". The reef is blooming.

MYTH 9
OUR SNOW SEASONS ARE SHORTER
Wrong. Poor snow falls in 2003 set off a rash of headlines predicting warming doom. The CSIRO typically fed the hysteria by claiming global warming would strip resorts of up to a quarter of their snow by 2018.
Yet the past two years have been bumper seasons for Victoria's snow resorts, and this year could be just as good, with snow already falling in NSW and Victoria this past week.

MYTH 10
TSUNAMIS AND OTHER DISASTERS ARE GETTING WORSE
Are you insane? Tsunamis are in fact caused by earthquakes. Yet there was World Vision boss Tim Costello last week, claiming that Asia was a "region, thanks to climate change, that has far more cyclones, tsunamis, droughts".
Wrong, wrong and wrong, Tim. But what do facts matter now to a warming evangelist when the cause is so just?
And so any disaster is now blamed on man-made warming the way they once were on Satan. See for yourself on www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm the full list, including kidney stones, volcanic eruptions, lousy wine, insomnia, bad tempers, Vampire moths and bubonic plagues. Nothing is too far-fetched to be seized upon by carpetbaggers and wild preachers as signs of a warming we can't actually see.
Not for nothing are polar bears the perfect symbol of this faith - bears said to be threatened by warming, when their numbers have in fact increased.
Bottom line: fewer people now die from extreme weather events, whether cyclones, floods or blinding heatwaves.
Read that in a study by Indur Goklany, who represented the US at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."
So stop this crazy panic.
First step: check again your list of the signs you thought you saw of global warming. How many are true? What do you think, and why do you think it?
Yes, the world may resume warming in one year or 100. But it hasn't been warming as the alarmists said it must if man were to blame, and certainly not as the media breathlessly keeps claiming.
Best we all just settle down, then, and wait for the proof -- the real proof. After all, panicking over invisible things is so undignified, don't you think?



Global warming alarmists out in cold | Herald Sun

 

[Anna Perenna]

Global warming alarmists out in cold

Andrew Bolt
April 29, 2009 12:00am

IT'S
MYTH 1
THE WORLD IS WARMING
Wrong. It is true the world did warm between 1975 and 1998, but even Professor David Karoly, one of our leading alarmists, admitted this week "temperatures have dropped" since - "both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites". In fact, the fall in temperatures from just 2002 has already wiped out half the warming our planet experienced last century. (Check data from Britain's Hadley Centre, NASA's Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre.)
Some experts, such as Karoly, claim this proves nothing and the world will soon start warming again. Others, such as Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University, point out that so many years of cooling already contradict the theory that man's rapidly increasing gases must drive up temperatures ever faster.
But that's all theory. The question I've asked is: What signs can you actually see of the man-made warming that the alarmists predicted?

MYTH 2
THE POLAR CAPS ARE MELTING
Wrong. The British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, last week confirmed ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years.
Long-term monitoring by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports the same: southern hemisphere ice has been expanding for decades.
As for the Arctic, wrong again.
The Arctic ice cap shrank badly two summers ago after years of steady decline, but has since largely recovered. Satellite data from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Centre this week shows the Arctic hasn't had this much April ice for at least seven years.
Norway's Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre says the ice is now within the standard deviation range for 1979 to 2007.

MYTH 3
WE'VE NEVER HAD SUCH A BAD DROUGHT
Wrong. A study released this month by the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre confirms not only that we've had worse droughts, but this Big Dry is not caused by "global warming", whether man-made or not.
As the university's press release says: "The causes of southeastern Australia's longest, most severe and damaging droughts have been discovered, with the surprise finding that they originate far away in the Indian Ocean.
"A team of Australian scientists has detailed for the first time how a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole - a variable and irregular cycle of warming and cooling of ocean water - dictates whether moisture-bearing winds are carried across the southern half of Australia."

MYTH 4
OUR CITIES HAVE NEVER BEEN HOTTER
Wrong. The alleged "record" temperature Melbourne set in January - 46.4 degrees - was in fact topped by the 47.2 degrees the city recorded in 1851. (See the Argus newspaper of February 8, 1851.)
And here's another curious thing: Despite all this warming we're alleged to have caused, Victoria's highest temperature on record remains the 50.7 degrees that hit Mildura 103 years ago.
South Australia's hottest day is still the 50.7 degrees Oodnadatta suffered 37 years ago. NSW's high is still the 50 degrees recorded 70 years ago.
What's more, not one of the world's seven continents has set a record high temperature since 1974. Europe's high remains the 50 degrees measured in Spain 128 years ago, before the invention of the first true car.

MYTH 5
THE SEAS ARE GETTING HOTTER
Wrong. If anything, the seas are getting colder. For five years, a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs has been deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries.
Warming believer Josh Willis, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, reluctantly concluded: "There has been a very slight cooling . . ."

CONTINUED...

Your first mistake: quoting the Herald Sun. This paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and we all know where his interests lie.

Your second mistake: quoting an article which selectively cites studies that support its purpose (ie, to undermine climate change research).

I find it dubious that one minor study from the CCRC UNSW is quoted, but a far more important study from the CCRC at UNSW is mysteriously missing - ie, the one that proves the earth is indeed, warming (just not at the high rate previously feared):

Aussie warming less extreme(ScienceAlert)

Now, IWS, when are you going to stop hiding behind cruddy, biased media pieces and actually start looking into this issue seriously?

 

[ImWithStupid]

Your first mistake: quoting the Herald Sun. This paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and we all know where his interests lie.

Your second mistake: quoting an article which selectively cites studies that support its purpose (ie, to undermine climate change research).

I find it dubious that one minor study from the CCRC UNSW is quoted, but a far more important study from the CCRC at UNSW is mysteriously missing - ie, the one that proves the earth is indeed, warming (just not at the high rate previously feared):

Aussie warming less extreme(ScienceAlert)

Now, IWS, when are you going to stop hiding behind cruddy, biased media pieces and actually start looking into this issue seriously?

Yea, I've posted contradictory article after contradictory article, with scientists showing proof of the falsehood that is, "global warming" and this is the first one you've tried to disprove, only based on the source of the article, but couldn't speak of the science referenced.

Nice try.

It really sucks when Mother Nature is a "global warming holocaust denier" for those of you who who worship at the alter of bull hype.

The research aircraft Polar 5 “ended today in Canada’s recent Arctic expedition. During the flight, researchers have measured the current Eisst?rke measured at the North Pole, and in areas that have never before been overflown. Result: The sea-ice in the surveyed areas is apparently thicker than the researchers had suspected.
Normally, ice is newly formed after two years, over two meters thick. “Here were Eisdicken up to four meters,” said a spokesman of Bremerhaven’s Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. For scientists, this result is still in contradiction to the warming of the seawater.

Inconvenient Eisdicken - “surprising results” from the Arctic Watts Up With That?

Explain to me why there is a $100,000 reward for anyone who can definitively prove man made global warming, that has been out there for years but nobody has even attempted to win it.

Probably because it's as provable as the coming ice age and global cooling was in the 1970's.

Really. Who looks like the fool. None of the claims of what is to come and much of what was claimed to have happened proves man made global warming.

I guess the real question is, when are you going to stop hiding behind the media driven, constantly proven false global warming drivel, that has no proven basis, and only exists to keep the easily influenced sheep moving along.

Global warming is the religion of the atheists, and Al Gore is your leader.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I find it dubious that one minor study from the CCRC UNSW is quoted, but a far more important study from the CCRC at UNSW is mysteriously missing - ie, the one that proves the earth is indeed, warming (just not at the high rate previously feared):

Aussie warming less extreme(ScienceAlert)

Let's just take your one little study, that obviously tries to give an excuse as to why we haven't seen the global warming that was predicted, you know the same type of people who say the last decade of global cooling, proves that there is global warming.

If global warming was truly man made, cause by the release of greenhouse gasses, and the release of those gasses have been steadily increasing, and that's what causes global warming, wouldn't temperatures steadily increase along with said, supposed gasses?

See, now. That's just plain common sense, and like I always say, the leftists will never let facts, get in the way of their agenda.

 

[ImWithStupid]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5GN9xzwhak"]YouTube - The secret formula of Coca Cola[/ame]


Sad thing is. There is as much undeniable, scientific proof and credibility to that scenario of the future as there is for, man made global warming.

 

[Anna Perenna]

It really sucks when Mother Nature is a "global warming holocaust denier" for those of you who who worship at the alter of bull hype.

When you're down to insulting your opponent, you've lost the argument.

Explain to me why there is a $100,000 reward for anyone who can definitively prove man made global warming, that has been out there for years but nobody has even attempted to win it.

Probably because it's as provable as the coming ice age and global cooling was in the 1970's.

Explain to me again why you don't even want to consider the possibility of man-made accelerated global warming? (Note, the emphasis on the word 'accelerated'. I believe I have already made my point about that bit. Kindly try to understand it.)

Really. Who looks like the fool.

I guess the real question is, when are you going to stop hiding behind the media driven, constantly proven false global warming drivel, that has no proven basis, and only exists to keep the easily influenced sheep moving along.

Haha, you're funny.

Once again in this thread, you have accused me of being a media-sheep yet YOU are the one who consistently quotes biased media articles, while I quote pure science (from UNSW in Australia, where I work and personally KNOW the scientists, no less).

Global warming is the religion of the atheists, and Al Gore is your leader.

Wow. I don't want to stoop to insulting IWS here, so does anyone else want to tear him apart over this sad excuse for a point in a debate?

If global warming was truly man made, caused by the release of greenhouse gases, and the release of those gases has been steadily increasing, and that's what causes global warming, wouldn't temperatures steadily increase along with said, supposed gases?

Yes. And they ARE. As my study says.......

Did you have a point you were trying to prove?

the leftists will never let facts, get in the way of their agenda.

What's their agenda, again?

I would like to know, since I am supposedly supporting their 'evil conspiracy'.

LOL.

 

[hugo]

World Climate Report Recent Temperature Trends in Context

About the best explanation of warming trends I have seen. The only thing anyone knows for sure is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I am not willing to pay double my current utility bill to fund otherwise uncompetitive energy solutions. As I stated before high energy costs artificially imposed in the West will lead to exporting of jobs to the developing world. It may even lead to more CO2 emissions worldwide as the regulated manufacturing in the West is exported to the relatively unregulated developing countries. The only solution is clean energy that is CHEAPER than our current energy sources. Either that or work on getting volcanoes to erupt more frequently.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

One of Al Gore's favorite sock puppets is this James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute. Well Hansen's former boss, retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, has come forward with some news .. Theon is skeptic of man-made global warming and his former employee James Hansen is an embarrassment to NASA. Yep, Theon says, "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made." He goes on to say, "Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress."

Here's some more to gnaw on, ladies and gentlemen. It's good to know that Al Gore is keeping good company.

 

[ImWithStupid]

When you're down to insulting your opponent, you've lost the argument.

Who did I insult? I called the theory of "global warming" bull .

I mean if you think "global warming" is some kind of person or deity, then I guess I'll apologize.

 

[snafu]

Who did I insult? I called the theory of "global warming" bull .

I mean if you think "global warming" is some kind of person or deity, then I guess I'll apologize.

Yes Global Warming aka - Harry the Rabbit.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I'm sure that this doesn't mean anything...

Sun Oddly Quiet -- Hints at Next "Little Ice Age"?

Anne Minard
for National Geographic News

May 4, 2009
A prolonged lull in solar activity has astrophysicists glued to their telescopes waiting to see what the sun will do next—and how Earth's climate might respond.

The sun is the least active it's been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.

Sun Oddly Quiet -- Hints at Next "Little Ice Age"?

Yea. I'm still more inclined to go with the man made global warming- er- climate change- er- climate turmoil or whatever they try to call it to fit the facts, saying that the fact that the planet has cooled, since it's high point ten years ago (coincidentally falling in line with the peak of solar activity), proves that the planet is warming.

It's not blind ideology, it's common sense.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

The increased solar activity of the late 20th century was predicted. There were concerns over satelites, communications, and the power grid, in the US Military in the late '80s.

I figured out the global warming/climate change fraud early, I recall two of the first global warming alarmists in the early 80's had written a paper about an impending ice age.

That made sense, if you look at a timeline of the ice ages, we're about due, but they were saying it was because of our industrial emissions blocking the sun to a tipping point. I was doubtful, because I knew the KGB seeded western 'environmental' groups with with millions to try to reduce our growth and industrial output. Brilliant subversion technique, by the way, the groups cost little to start, nothing to maintain, because they feed off donations from western dupes and fellow travelers. They use those funds to attack, stall, and make prohibitavely expensive any industrial development, and they've been very effective, though they most often damage the environment worse than they help.

When these same two 'scientists' wrote a paper in the early 80's claiming our industrial and consumer emissions were now causing the opposite climatic effects, I knew theirs was a 'solution' in search of a problem. Lots of very respectable people who should know better fell for it.

People are starting to catch on, though the 'environmentalists' have smoothly shifted from global warming to "climate change", a self fulfilling prophecy.