November 20, 2009 is an important date because it now looks like it was the day that “global warming” ended. It was the day that a total fabrication, a hoax, was revealed to be the work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aided and abetted by a vast network of governmental and business leaders, a compliant media, and scientists who sold their souls for grants and other funding.
It was the day that Al Gore was shown to be unworthy to share a Nobel Peace Prize with the iniquitous IPCC, nor an Oscar for his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
It was the day that Cap-and-Trade legislation, the largest tax ever on energy use, was eviscerated as lacking any basis in science. The legislation proposed to establish a “carbon credits” trade that would have enriched the Chicago Climate Exchange created by investors that included Goldman Sachs. Following the “global warming” hoax revelations, the Exchange would close its doors within a year.
November 20 was the day that three thousand emails between the meteorologists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, specifically its director, Phil Jones, and Penn State’s Michael Mann, as well as others involved in the hoax were made available on the Internet.
The Washington Times reported that “Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner rejected the revelations in the email exchanges, saying “I’m sticking with the 2,500,” referring to the IPCC climate science members. “These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real.” This, like all the other assertions about “global warming” was a lie.
It must be noted that President Barack Obama continues to talk about “climate change”, the term used to replace “global warming”. His administration has many “global warming” advocates including his science advisor, Dr. John Holden, and Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu. The Environmental Protection Agency is engaged in securing authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas emissions” as this is being written.
The administration’s funding through subsidies and mandates for “renewable energy” sources such as solar and wind energy is entirely based on the assertion that the generation of energy by coal-fired plants, is causing “global warming.” Neither solar, nor wind can even begin to provide sufficient energy for the nation, now or in the future. Support for ethanol, a biofuel, is equally without merit.
The primary assertion behind “global warming” was that it was “anthropogenic”, created by human activity, primarily the burning of “fossil fuels” by utilities to generate electricity and by industrial users. Similarly the use of oil derivatives, gasoline and diesel for transportation is blamed.
A segment of IPCC members did not support the global warming hoax and tried for years to marshall opposition to the Panel’s findings, published in reports shot through with baseless distortions and assertions that the Earth was heating to an extraordinary degree. Over time, they came forth and publicly disputed the IPCC for spreading the “global warming” hoax.
More here: http://americandaily.com/index.php/article/4679
Jeff if you actually read the article you’d see that it was a summary of many of the negative issues surrounding the AGW movement each of which relates to its own piece of evidence… I sense sour grapes!??!
More Pages:
- Solar Producer: Is Global Warming A Hoax? (7/10/2011)
- Solar Products: A New Way To Look At Global Warming? (6/17/2011)
- Is the Myth that Man is causing so-called “Global Warming” now refuted by Scientist?
- Solar Products: Global Warming, How To Stop It? (7/29/2011)
- Unless GLOBAL WARMING IS JUST AN EXCUSE BY POLITICIANS TO RAISE TAXES why don’t they fund more solar research?
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
do the glaciers and arctic ice pack know?
Reposting links from random, horrible looking, amateurish websites that have absolutely nothing to do with science now eh?
Edit: I did read it. It’s horrible. Many of the same unscientific statements are made in that article that anti-AGWers here like to state as truth too.
You are correct.
Gore needs to be admitted to the psychiatric insititute.
it might have ended but still it could return and cause another global warming with cars and smoke from factories but hopefully it doesnt happen
have you ever heard of the Ozone layer, acid rain, water pollution. I grew up in Meyersdale Pa. the Casselman river was orange from the run off from the sulfur from the local mines. Fish could not live in it and you couldn’t swim there.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=14kNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1m8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4179,7070012&dq=casselman+river&hl=en
Clearly, “global warming”as a term, ended long before that. Climate change has been the accepted term for several years now, and yet opponents of the theory continue to oppose the likelihood of GW rather then Climate Change.
The full weight of evidence has not as yet come down conclusively on either side of the debate.
The fact that Al Gore is a nobby w**ker doesn’t discount the possibility of CC, and the fact that there have been fluctuations on the global averages over the past few decades doesn’t disprove that is could be normal cyclical changes.
People continue to use emotive arguments and pseudo-science on both sides of the argument.
If we just plant more trees and burn less fossil fuel, we should be better off either way.