100,000 frozen cattle in October 2013
100,000 frozen cattle in October 2013

YES, ITS REALLY TRUE. I am a "warming/science denier", "Anti-science" "Flat Earth society" "Knuckle dragger". And it's all because of The Koch brothers, big oil, and "Fox news" --not. If you read for a moment I will break it to the few points that mean anything. I wanted to keep this as plain and simple as possible so we can flow with the idea. All links for information is available. If anyone want to respond I will post all the links, and more information. If not My longer article in a week or so will include it all.


The whole premise comes down to one real point. The theory states, humans are causing C02 to rise, which is making the Earths climate to warm. That's it. Ice sheets, tornados, rain, snow etc, are fun to talk about, but none of that proves, nor disproves the theory of AGW.  Lets simply break that down

* Co2 has empirical evidence, but of differing degrees of what the warming effect is. C02 level is about 400 PPM.

* All the computer models use a 3 X factor to add in for the water vapor effect. So, 1/3 C02, and 2/3 water vapor. The theory states that as the Earth warms, more water vapor will be in the air. The water vapor acts as, and therefore is, by far the largest factor of warming theory.


The "water vapor feedback" HAS NO EMPERICAL EVIDENCE. It was basically a guess. All computer models, including the IPCC, use the same models that assume the water vapor.

Now with the passage of time, the global temperatures prove 98% of all the models wrong. None of them allow for the lack of rising since 1998. As Michael. Mann put it ten years ago, if this goes on for 15 years everything is wrong. It is now 16 years. Even if one believed the theory, the whole thing should have been rethought because of this alone.

C02 is plant food. It is what we exhale. Plants take it in and give out oxygen. A most beautiful relationship.

C02 blocks certain rays of the sun. Most of the affect, happens with small amounts, with diminishing affect the higher it goes.

C02: Now with better resonance of ice cores, we see that on average C02 rose 800 years after warming...that was not a typo. C02 AFTER, NOT BEFORE warming.

THE CONSENSUS: This can get long, and if anyone wants I can explain more. But in a nut shell, their is no consensus, and their was no debate.

*most worked from the early false data that was hidden "lost" and refused to show. Most accepted the false hockey stick, which is totally against "the scientific method"

* The biggest alarmists made their way into most of the "scientific" publications, groups, and government positions. They backed each other up, as if it is a different source. They incestuously peer review each other. Environmental extremists also infiltrated the same groups, and hired like minds.

* Some say their are not peer reviewed from skeptics. Here is 1,350 all linked from this one site.


THE IPCC: The IPCC was formed by governments with the mission statement of finding "Man-made" global warming.....ONLY man-made, and make a "what-if" report. Thart is exactly whaty they do. Read the IPCC reports. It is one long "what-if". You will quickly see the language is not scientific. It uses words to alarm people and stir emotion, not scientific. I have personally gone through sections and checked exactly what they describe, and even their scary reports of extreme weather is less than truthful.

SPENDING ON "DENIERS" The government spends about 3,000 to 1. Call out Koch, Heritage, all you want but with a 3,000 to 1 ratio, and most of the skeptics are non paid, doing it for the passion of truth, it speaks for itself.


Although I don't have to figure that out to show why the human caused is false, I will offer the following.

We had a "little ice age" for a few hundred years that we started coming out of around 1750, and have been warming to what it was before that period. This was before the industrial revolution.

 Their are Sun cycles 60, and 11 year cycles, The Earth wobble, and more. Our temperature is consistent with coming out of the ice age, and the Sun cycles. Most recently the peak in 1998 coincided with the Sun, and the quick halt of any rise is consistant with the sharp drop off of Sun spots. Many scientists actually see many parralles with the "m,aunder minimum" type low of the depth of the Little ice age, and are predicting from 20-50% chance of a little ice age. That would be much more deadly than   any warming. The Earth is a little warmer than 1750. If it had not warmed since then-----we would still be in the little ice age. Thank God for that.

OH....and about that denier thing. If accepting something "because "they say so" is scientific, but reading both sides and asking questions is called a "denier," it might be time to rethink what else they are asking us to blindly accept. I am talking about the "authorities" , not people like you or me who hear it. Anyone old enough to remember the late sixties? "question authority" 

Three years ago I believed what the alarmists were saying. How could you not when it is the same talk everywhere, and in the very fabric of speech,and action of society. I wanted to know why. And when I saw how wrong Al Gore was....that sent me on a mission to find out. "How could All scientists be wrong"? They aren't. They are not the ones getting paid, and are locked out. Thousands are squawking, not many open the mike for them.

Asymmetry March 22, 2014 at 06:14 PM
You are not alone. Freeman Dyson, a highly respected physicist who has made monumental contributions to the theory of QED (quantum electrodynamics), does not believe there is any scientific merit on global warming either. Here is the article from the NY Times magazine in 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Enjoy reading.
Fortified- I am Buzzlightyear >>>>>>>> March 22, 2014 at 07:03 PM
Great article, or it a short book? A couple of quotes are: 1) “lousy science for distracting public attention from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.” END QUOTE Exactly, this alarmism takes the energy of anyone who is an environmentalist, and detours it, thus actually being a negative. __________________________________________________ 2) "They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models.” 3) "The warming, he says, is not global but local, “making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter.” Far from expecting any drastic harmful consequences from these increased temperatures, he says the carbon may well be salubrious — a sign that “the climate is actually improving rather than getting worse,” because carbon acts as an ideal fertilizer promoting forest growth and crop yields. “Most of the evolution of life occurred on a planet substantially warmer than it is now,” he contends, “and substantially richer in carbon dioxide.” 4) "......is still “a relatively cool period in the earth’s history.” __________________________________________________ I recognize Freeman Dyson from my favorite show. "Closer to truth" Which asks the worlds ultimate questions about our universe consciousness, and God. Of course anything of real value, and thinking does not get the respect of having a set time on TV. Every show is available here. Definitely worth checking out. .... ( http://www.closertotruth.com/ )
SteveB March 24, 2014 at 02:46 AM
The Dyson article is interesting. It is also interesting to see what different people take away from it. "Asymmetry" thinks Dyson "does not believe there is any scientific merit on global warming". I can present quotes from that same article which paint a different picture: ------------------------------------------ "Dyson agrees with the prevailing view that there are rapidly rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere caused by human activity"------------------------------------------------------------ " Dyson calls ocean acidification, which many scientists say is destroying the saltwater food chain, a genuine but probably exaggerated problem. Sea levels, he says, are rising steadily, but why this is and what dangers it might portend “cannot be predicted until we know much more about its causes.”------------ Coal, Dyson says, contains “real pollutants” like soot, sulphur and nitrogen oxides, “really nasty stuff that makes people sick and looks ugly.” These are “rightly considered a moral evil,” he says, but they “can be reduced to low levels by scrubbers at an affordable cost.” ------------------------------------ “It’s always possible Hansen could turn out to be right,” he says of the climate scientist. “If what he says were obviously wrong, he wouldn’t have achieved what he has."
Fortified- I am Buzzlightyear >>>>>>>> March 24, 2014 at 03:42 AM
Hey Steve, You are the only one in the whole country that can read something clearly, logically debate, and put up a challenge that I have to think about. I am certainly no expert. But everyone else throw up trash, one line sound bites, and insults, and no one learns anything. I don't know if you are aware, I am much more clear about the points than a year ago. Perhaps the most important point I learned is that all the computer models use the 3 x factor for water vapor without empirical evidence. Everything is a projection using the same idea. I am more sure that almost no one from either side knows anything about it. If you are interested this is a great vid...as I found the link, I see it also has many more I never knew about. I only watched my Favorite so far, "JONOVA". ( http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/#prettyPhoto )


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »