FAUX RELIGION

2008 BELOW Normal??

2008-11-10T09:43:00.000-08:00

1) Firstly, the linked/shown graphic, nor the accompanying story will probably never find its way to a "main stream" (liberally biased) media outlet. It simply does Not follow the template that the Earth is warming and man kind is in jeopardy of destruction unless we save ourselves from ourselves. (Stop living well) We wonder IF the reverse were true (the majority of the country was ABOVE normal) that we would have silence on that information? Of course we know the answer to this. Only warmth/destructive storms are news worthy and fit into the "Climate Change" model of news.

2) Meanwhile in Washington we will soon have a new president who is fully behind the kool-aid drinking of Global Climate Change (when was the 'warming' removed?) The result of that and increased representation of the Democrat party assures we will soon see some kind of Carbon Tax in place. Great time to put additional costs on industry and business owners (everyone!), in the midst of the worst recession since Jimmy Carter! We at FAUXRUMORS of course wish the new administration well, and hope they don't implement these fool hearty measures. We also are hoping/praying that there is a colossal blizzard on January 20, 2009 to welcome in the new president. Of course he will only blame the inclement weather on climate change (as everything is) anyway, so why bother?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/oct/01_10_2008_DvTempRank_pg.gif

Farmer's Almanac Right Wing Rag?

2008-09-09T09:18:00.000-07:00

1) The most popular/longest running climatic predictor The Farmers Almanac, which has been predicting the short and long term for North America for going on 192 years appears to be in direct disagreement with the Faux-'consensus of scientists' with its prediction that the US will experience a half century of 'COOLING".
Fans of the Almanac say its famous long-range forecast is accurate between 80 and 85 percent of the time. The predictions are based on a mathematical and astronomical formula that dates back to 1818, and each new edition contains 16 months of weather forecasts for the contiguous United States.

2) Time will only tell but they appear to have a FAR better long term record than the morons who can't predict the path/intensity of a hurricane accurately more than 12 hours out. If the same/similar computers who also can't correctly predict the regular weather more than 2-3 days, how can they predict the climate for decades at a time?? We trust The Farmers Almanac FAR more!

3) No doubt the Global Warming Nazi's will either totally avoid discussing the Almanac';s predictions or dismiss them condescendingly. All the while having a FAR worse record in climate prediction. (Recall the 1970's Global Cooling Alarmists?) If they do mention the Almanac they will probably attribute their findings to 'Ring Wing Extremists who write the publication. To them any one who attends church and doesn't need the government to survive is a 'Right wing zealot!' By the way, in what climate do plants and animals thrive? Warm and wet, or cold and dry?? We say bring on the warmth baby!

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-09-09-farmers-almanac_N.htm

CO2 IS Not A Pollutant?

2008-08-01T08:55:00.001-07:00

1) Breaking news folks. Apparently the Earth's biosphere (that's stuff that grows) is actually expanding Scientists use the term Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere, the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe’s production. Biomass is apparently booming!! The planet is the greenest it’s been in decades, perhaps in centuries.

2) In the 1980s, ecologists realized that satellites could track production, and enlisted NASA to collect the data. For the first time, ecologists did not need to rely on rough estimates or anecdotal evidence of the health of the ecology: They could objectively measure the land’s output and soon did on a daily basis and down to the last kilometer. The results surprised scientists. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

3) Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up. (carbon is the building block of life) and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2:(Bet you didn't see this in the NY Times!) “Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century

4) Unlike the many scientists who welcome CO2 for its benefits, many other scientists and most governments believe carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant that must be removed from the atmosphere at all costs. Governments around the world are now enacting massive programs in an effort to remove as much as 80% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere. Amazingly, although the risks of action are arguably at least as real as the risks of inaction, Canada and other countries are rushing into Earth-altering carbon schemes with nary a doubt. Environmentalists, who ordinarily would demand a full-fledged environmental assessment before a highway or a power plant can be built, are silent on the need to question proponents or examine alternatives.
Earth is on a roll. Governments are too. We will know soon enough if we’re rolled off a cliff.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/

Why We Love Czechs!

2008-05-29T13:12:00.000-07:00

1) Is it any more evident that those of us who have been blessed/born into this (relatively) free country take these liberties for granted, while those who have known persecution/totalitarianism embrace/do NOT take them granted. This is the back drop for the latest dust up for the growing movement AGAINST the Global Warming hoax/hysteria.

2) Czech President Vaclav Klaus said recently that he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he discussed his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. "I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he's not too much willing to make such a conversation," Klaus said. "So I'm ready to do it."

3) Klaus, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia. Like the (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said. "In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added. Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming. "It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only," Klaus said.

4) Thank you Mr Klaus. Of course Gore will never accept this challenge. As he is too far above the fray to engage this non believer/heretic from such an inconsequential country. Its easier to dismiss him than to try to have an honest debate. Since almost all the 'facts' on Gores side are based upon assumptions/untested/unknowns/junk science he couldn't possibly win a cogent argument from the other side. Ofcourse Klaus is probably being secretly paid off by the evil oil companies, right?

Why We Are Doomed!

2008-05-14T09:41:00.000-07:00

1) Our imminent 'doom' has more to do with the current political climate than the actual Earth climate. Our US readers already know their likely presidential successor to GW Bush will be either Barak Husssein Obama/ Hillary Rodham Clinton or John strait-talk McCain. While they may differ ever so slightly over other issues, on the issue of 'climate Change' all 3 are in lock-step.

2) While its probably not a surprise that both Democrat candidates are pro-global warming as they try to keep their environmental wacko base happy, what is different this political season is that the 'Republican' candidate, McCain has a similar view. This sadly means that there will be no presidential candidate this year willing to question the assertion that global warming (a.k.a. “climate change”) is man-made, or the assertion that we can fix global warming by passing a few laws.

3) Like Clinton and Obama, McCain’s proposal involves a “cap and trade” mechanism to legislatively limit CO2 emissions in the coming years, with the free market minimizing the economic damage by allowing a trading of emission credits between companies. There is amazingly widespread misperception that we can do anything substantial about carbon emissions without seriously compromising economic growth.

4) Sure, forcing a reduction in CO2 emissions will help spur investment in any new energy technologies. Finding a replacement for carbon-based energy will require a huge investment of wealth, and destroying wealth, which is what a carbon tax would do, is not a very good first step, toward that goal. At some point you would think as we are faced with the stark reality that mankind’s requirement for an abundant source of energy cannot simply be legislated out of existence that we would revolt against this kind of nonsense.

5) The bottom line to all of this crap is that despite all the doomsday predictions of how bad things are going to get cllimate-wise, and how we (man kind) is destroying the planet, there has never been a single scientific paper published that has ruled out natural variability for most of the warming (however minimal its been the last 50 years) we’ve seen. So, here we are with bad science ready to support bad policy decisions that will lead to bad economic times ahead. If no one among us is willing to stand up to the scare scientists and their willing accomplices in the media and politicians continue down this path we are indeed doomed!

News Flash: Oceans Part of The Earth!

2008-05-01T05:04:00.000-07:00

1) What we love most about the linked article below is the fact that despite apparent evidence that the oceans are going to cause/are causing the temperatures globally to cool (a tad) the alarm for global warming continues. Where were these scientists who discovered the ocean effects before now? Did they just discover that THREE QUARTERS of the world is covered by water, and this may perhaps play a role in our ever-changing climate?

2) No, the article refuses to budge on the premise that mankind is destroying the planet. This appears to us to be an excuse/a reason to explain why temperatures are NOT/have not risen globally at all in 10 years despite continued increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. Comically the article actually states that "Since 1988, CO2 levels in the world's skies have increased by 9.8 percent". OK, shouldn't global temps have markedly increased if CO2 was the cause of any global warming? Well, temps have not gone up (actually fallen) in the past decade and now we're told they may fall further in the next 10 years. If our math is correct, that would mean we'd see a full 20 years of decreasing temperatures?

3) Here's a better explanation. The Earth's climate is constantly in flux. There are variables/factors that scientists have yet to understand/discover. There are so many possible mitigating factors that go into what the global temperatures are, and the climate is, that is total and immense hubris to believe that man kind is having more than a minor (if any significant) effect on the planet. To cause alarm, and to harm people all in the name of this hoax/junk science is the biggest injustice of our time!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aU.evtnk6DPo&refer=worldwide

Unintended Consequesnces!

2008-04-25T08:34:00.000-07:00

1) Below is the link to a recent NY Sun article where a large portion of the recent food shortages are blamed squarely on the bogus 'fight against Global Climate change'. Now, we'll suspend our anger here temporarily over the hubris that humans can 'change the climate', but instead focus on how these environmental wackos and the politicians who are making money(Gore) and attaining power (Gore) are causing a REAL global catastrophe, hunger/famine.

2) So why is this happening? Since the global warming nonsense began to influence political decisions in earnest about 5 or so years ago the governments, especially the US has been investing large sums of money/giving large tax breaks to farmers who grow crops geared towards "Bio fuels". Specifically corn into Ethanol.

Not only does Ethanol cost MORE than gasoline to produce, its also vastly less efficient to use (Less mileage per gallon)

Its a renewable resource, BUT its a commodity with a variable degree of output: Influenced by annual weather conditions.

Instead of the corn going to feed the world its going to refineries to be made into fuel. Spiking up prices and creating shortages

3) With prices for rice, wheat, and corn soaring, food-related unrest has broken out in places such as Haiti, Indonesia, and Afghanistan. Several countries have blocked the export of grain. There is even talk that governments could fall if they cannot bring food costs down. In an interview last year, Mr. Gore expressed his support for corn-based ethanol.

4) Its bad enough when the fix is worse than the original problem, however here its even more absurd because there was an unintended problem caused by a fix for a FICTITIOUS/FAUX PROBLEM! We believe this could be just the tip of the iceberg(pun intended). What other 'fixes' for this Faux problem will result in other catastrophes? This is precisely why people like us need to get LOUD and voice our outrage at these new/proposed policies that try to 'save the Planet'.

http://www.nysun.com/news/food-crisis-eclipsing-climate-change

How Can This Be?

2008-03-24T11:05:00.000-07:00

1) The story buried (or probably not mentioned in the liberal (mainstream press) this past week was the amazing discovery that the largest area of the planet, the oceans is NOT warming at all. How can that be? After all isn't the earth supposed to be on a collision course towards destruction (Global warming/climate change) (By the way, when is the climate not changing?) Anyway, the story states that there are 3000 or so mini robots plying the oceans collecting data about ocean temperatures. Up until this point there were very few reliable indicators about this VAST area of the Earth. This by the way is one of the HUGE reasons that many, including us a FAUXRUMORS have been global warming skeptics from the beginning. How can one make hard conclusions without immense amounts of data missing from the equation??

2) They go on to say: 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. Therefore NASA has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans. In fact there has been a slight cooling! You can bet your boots that If there was a 'slight warming' that would have been conclusive evidence in favour of global warming. Of course a slight decline must just mean that the data/data collection method is faulty, right?

3) Interestingly Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet. That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.
"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says. Translation: We don't know shit of what causes changes in temperature and climate. When you folks (scientists) have an actual clue, come back to us (the public) with the complete story so we can then decide for ourselves what IF anything needs to be done. Until that day, shut up and stop with the scare tactics!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Arctic Sea Ice INCREASES!

2008-02-19T04:56:00.000-08:00

1) The latest northern hemispheric sea ice extent and concentration, courtesy of The State of the Canadian Cryosphere. You can animate this image and others here. The recent spell of very cold weather across far northern Canada has expanded sea ice coverage by about 2 million square kilometers compared to the average winter coverage over the past three years, according to a CBC News report. Of course the polar bears probably are wondering what all this frozen water is doing there, right? Weren't they supposed to be soon extinct because there was soon going to be no more polar ice?

2) The key point in this report.....Arctic sea ice is about 10-20 cm thicker in some areas, compared to last year and that is significant, according to Gilles Langis, an Ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service. What type of impact, if any, will this have on the all important summer sea ice coverage in the Arctic? Langis added that it's too soon to say what impact this winter will have on the Arctic summer sea ice, which reached its lowest coverage ever recorded in the summer of 2007. We can already tell you the impact; It will be larger than last year. Of course this trend will be overlooked as an aberation. When things don't fit into the global warming model, its ignored

3) Of course this result also doesn't jive with reports that CO2 (Yes the gas that we can't live without) is at all time highs. We were also told that Global Warming is exagerated at the poles. Yet in BOTH the north and south poles temperatures have been below normal. We wonder if time magazine will do an alarmist article about this? We're not holding our breath!

Hold the Presses: Clinton Tells The Truth!

2008-02-06T08:55:00.000-08:00

1) Recently in Colorado Bill Clinton made a very truthful statement about the folks who want to fight this bogus 'war on global warming. Said Bill Clinton: "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy to Fight Global Warming". Now whenever a Clinton actually tells the truth its a reason to take notice. Most likely his wife won't take too kindly for his moment of candor.

2) In the long, and boring speech, he said what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming was: : "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."
"Slow down our economy"? HMMM, that sounds like Bill thinks that few Americans working is the way to combat this issue. How about a world wide depression, now that would really slow down all that dastardly CO2 from evil economic properity!

3) So was this a moment of candor? He then went on to say (back to lying) that the U.S. and "those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases -- could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan". Confused? There was something of a contradiction there. Or perhaps he mis-spoke. Maybe it depends what the definition of "Is", is?
If you want you can see that clip HERE or if you need rest/sleep, you can watch the whole speech at the website of ABC News' great Denver affiliate KMGH by clicking HERE.

4) As we, and most others who see Global Warming as a Fraudulent cause have said: This issue is a not so veiled attempt to reintroduce/strenthen socialism/communism though the guise of 'environentalism. We can now thank Bill Clinton for making that assertion quite clear/illustritive to any on the fence as to the real motivation of this frenzied faux-cause!

Global COOLING Being Seen/Predicted

2008-01-03T11:21:00.000-08:00

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

1) Above is a link to a Russian story that scientists in that country are seeing a possible shift to a colder climate; That our current period of relative warmth may soon be ending and the writer advises folks to "stock up on fur coats and felt boots". We're fairly certain the writer, Oleg Sorokhtin isn't now, or has been employed by Exxon-Mobile or any Russian Oil conglomerates. His model based on actual science, not the pseudo science of AlGore, states that the 'Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells'.

2) The primary reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation. Or solar activity and luminosity. Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data suggests that the Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

3) "Green house gases" may not be to blame for global warming. There is no scientific evidence that they cause it. The classic greenhouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in the lower layers. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming.

4) If industrial pollution with carbon dioxide keeps at its present-day 5-7 billion metric tons a year, it would not change global temperatures up to the year 2100. The change would be so small for humans to feel even if the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions doubles! Carbon dioxide is NOT bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution—the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air. Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.

Fire Or Ice?

2007-12-27T07:05:00.000-08:00

1) Journalists have warned of climate change for over 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland! And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.

2) The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.” Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.

3) Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.” Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

4) After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.” That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.” In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming.

5) Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.” Recent global warming reports have continued that trend, morphing into a hybrid of both theories. News media that once touted the threat of “global warming” have moved on to the more flexible term “climate change.” As the Times described it, climate change can mean any major shift, making the earth cooler or warmer.

6) The idea of “climate change” means that any major climate event can be blamed on global warming, supposedly driven by mankind. Spring 2006 has been swamped with climate change hype in every type of media – books, newspapers, magazines, online, TV and even movies. Al Gore, THE patron saint of the environmental movement,“An Inconvenient Truth”.

7) Despite all the historical shifting from one position to another, most in the media no longer welcome opposing views on the climate. CBS reporter Scott Pelley went so far as to compare climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers. He said in an interview on March 23 with CBS News’s PublicEye blog. He added that the whole idea of impartial journalism just didn’t work for climate stories. “There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible,” he said.

8) From 1954-1976 all we heard was "The ice age is coming", The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s. Three months before, on January 11, The Washington Post told readers to “get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come,” in an article titled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age.” The article quoted climatologist Reid Bryson, who said “there’s no relief in sight” about the cooling trend. Journalists took the threat of another ice age seriously. Fortune magazine actually won a “Science Writing Award” from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed,” Fortune announced in February 1974. ”

9) The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming. “The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations,” wrote Lowell Ponte in his 1976 book “The Cooling.” If the proper measures weren’t taken, he cautioned, then the cooling would lead to “world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000.” There were more warnings. The Nov. 15, 1969, “Science News” quoted meteorologist Dr. J. Murray Mitchell Jr. . “How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilization,” he said. If the cooling continued for 200 to 300 years, the earth could be plunged into an ice age. Six years later, the periodical reported “the cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

10) Today’s global warming advocates probably don’t even realize their claims aren’t original! Before the cooling worries of the ’70s, America went through global warming fever for several decades around World War II. The nation entered the “longest warm spell since 1776,” according to a March 27, 1933, New York Times headline. The Washington Post felt the heat as well and titled an article simply “Hot weather” on August 2, 1930. Meteorologist J. B. Kincer of the federal weather bureau published a scholarly article on the warming world in the September 1933 “Monthly Weather Review.” The article began discussing the “wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather” and asked “Is our climate changing?” Kincer proceeded to document the warming trend.

11) So what can one conclude from all these conflicting stories? That the main stream press will parrot whatever the prevailing ideology is of the day, and more importantly that today's alarmists dooms day folks have NO credibility. The climate is always changing and to make conclusions based on a short snap shot of time(less than 100 yrs) is totally inane, as are the 'remedies' that are being proposed to stop this 'catastrophe'

We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change

2007-12-19T10:29:00.000-08:00

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

1) Above is the link to an article that should have been front page news but was ignored during the recent silly UN Climate summit in Indonesia. In it 100 leading climate scientists write to the head of the UN Ban Ki-Moon the Secretary-General that the recent 'warm up, falls well within the known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

2) They go on to say that " It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages". They castigate the UN for their alarmist proclamations. The key sentence though was: it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions

3) That should have been a HUGE story. This was from a large collection of scientists. None of whom are currently employed by Exxon-Mobile, etc. Since this story did not fit the mold of Global Climate Change, it was largely ignored by all main stream press outlets. We guess blasphemy against the religion of Global Warming doesn't get reported, but gets buried, regardless of facts

Real Pope makes Global Warming Statement

2007-12-12T09:07:00.000-08:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

1) Above is a link to an article from today where Pope Benedict XVI makes a surpirsing(but refreshing) statement that "any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology. "

2) He went on to say: 'fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering. '.....it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.'

3) His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped. Thank you !!!

Founder of Weather Channel: Global Warming is a Scam!

2007-11-08T06:31:00.000-08:00

By John Coleman
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

Why Global Warming IS a Religion

2007-10-04T05:30:00.001-07:00

1) Global Warming is nothing more than a euphemism for redistribution of wealth from the rich, development nations to jealous dictatorships who refuse to allow their citizens the right to gain their own wealth through free markets. It's about political redistribution from strong, independent sovereign nations into the hands of a power-hungry global elite cowering in the United Nations. These are the same cowardly scoundrels who used to try to rule the world through global communism. Today they pretend that the same lies have something to do with protecting the environment.

2) This thing they call Global Warming, or now Global Climate Change(When has the climate not been changing?) is nothing more than the lefts latest attempt to eliminate/reduce the free market. It IS a religion to them, and one only has to look at the way it is portrayed by 'believers', and how heretics who refuse to drink the Kool-ade are treated.

They peddle fear to mobilize the uneducated masses into 'action'.

They have a 'Bible", in this case: Al Gore's: An Inconvenient Truth. Now being force fed to school kids and paid for by our tax dollars. What happened to separation of church and state?

Much like the past mistakes of the Catholic church to give 'indulgences' for sin, the followers of this religion instead call their papal indulgences "carbon offsets."

When questioning the "science" behind global warming, scientists are brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" and shunned. The moment anyone diverges from official church doctrine on global warming, they are threatened with destruction. (funding cut off/denied tenure, etc.)Heretics would be burnt at the stake if they could figure out how to do it in a "carbon neutral" way.

Like a religion, environmentalism is suffused with hatred for the material world and again, like religion, it requires devotion rather than intellectual rigour from its adherents.

Only a Faux religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.

Like a good religion there the route to personal salvation lies in the performance of superstitious rituals, such as changing a light bulb, buying a Hybrid car, or planting a tree.

Faith is a belief held without evidence

3) Fact is climate prediction is a relatively new science, which has emerged only in recent decades thanks partly to the emergence of computers. So there are no easy certainties about the past — or the future. At most, we have a 50-year span of accurate measurements. The only genuine global records of temperature come from weather balloons, since the late 50's, and later from microwave sounding units, since the late 70's. Not until the last decade have satellites allowed us to measure ocean temperatures throughout the globe. Here are some unfortunate 'inconvenient facts:

We have no data demonstrating that human beings are doing more than moderately contributing to it. Even that is in dispute

We have no data demonstrating that we are capable of doing anything meaningful to stop it. The Kyoto accord would do NOTHING except allow politicians to impose higher taxes/hurt economies

The warming may be a good thing, not a bad thing. How arrogant to assume The current averages are the best average temperatures for humans/the planet?

It seems quite likely to be self-correcting in the long run. Many reputable scientists have stated that there are many factors NOT yet understood(Water Vapour) that may modify any effects 'carbon' is having.

4) We will use this blog to sound off on this bogus religion and offer our own proof and site credible sources to back our ideas, and we will NOT be swayed by scare tactics that blind believers often use to combat those of us who dare 'think'.