Internet Articles (2017)
n the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. What we know today about Earth in its primeval stage is that it was without form, and darkness was on the face of a shapeless deep. We are then told, still in in Genesis 1, that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. In the beginning, when the Bible referred to water, what it wasn't talking about was H2O. It appears it was referring to a flexuous plasma layer beyond the ionsphere. Scripture refers not to watery liquid form of moisture forming in primeval clouds as rain. It was a primeval plasma, That primeval "water" is referred to in Psalm 148:4 as the "...waters that are above the heavens."
Matter comes in five states, The first four are: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. (Our sun is made entirely of plasma.) A fifth form, condensates, is a transitional state of matter. The only difference between these elements is the density of the particles which make up each. I mention this only because when we contemplate those elements, we think of matter in the forms we find them today. Solids are, well, solid. Liquids and gases are free-flowing. Earth has a plasma atmosphere (called the plasmasphere).located beyond our ionsphere within the magnetosphere where the Earth's magnetic field exists. It is a region of dense, cold matter that surrounds Earth. I mention this only because when people read the Bible, they perceive four forms of matter mentioned in Scripture as they see them today. Particularly water. Water, to us, consists of two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen. But the primal Biblical water was plasma before hydrogen and oxygen molecules fused in the ionsphere to form water droplets of rain in an otherwise oxygen-free atmosphere.
In our mindseye, the first element mentioned in Genesis 1 is water. But it's important to remember that organic life, which cannot exist without oxygen, was created in a world devoid of it. And, H2O—water—was hardly the first element created by the hand of God. After the Big Bang, the first element in the formation of the planet we know as Earth were gases, followed by condensates which separated liquids from gases and solids, followed by the plasmasphere which formed from cooling gaseous matter above what became the ionsphere. The first liquids in Earth's atmosphere were elements like mercury and bromine. H2O was still hundreds of thousands of years down the creation trail. What evolved first was liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen, liquid nitrogen and liquid helium. Earth did not have a gaseous atmosphere that would sustain any form of life, neither organic nor inorganic. Rain, combining those liquid elements fell first, which is why inorganic life began in the primeval seas and why water first came from heaven.
The eco-idiot global warming Chicken Littles who are lining their pockets with gold as they sell their "sky is falling" rhetoric by claiming that trading carbon credits somehow gives us cleaner air to breath by eliminating carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. That carbon dioxide, by the way, is the food plants eat to create oxygen. Oxygen combined with hydrogen creates water. Eliminate, or greatly reduce carbon dioxide and you eliminate or greatly reduce both the oxygen you breathe and the water you drink, and likewise, the water the farmers need to grow the vegetables and fruits you eat because carbon dioxide is the food that plants eat—and oxygen is the excreted byproduct.
Over the years, I've asked the next question at least fifty times. Have you ever watched the 1973 hit movie Soylent Green starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson, or the 2012 TV mini-series, Terra Nova, starring a whole bunch of people of whom I've never heard? Al Gore, in his video and companion book, An Inconvenient Truth, claims that sweaty people and flatulent cows cause global warming—not just on Earth, but simultaneously, on Venus and Mars. How do we do that? Particularly since there are no sweaty humans and flatulent cows on Mars or Venus to blame. But, we'll get back to that. Meanwhile, back to Tinseltown which, more than anything on Earth, is to blame..
Both celluloid productions (large and small screens) depict a world in which greedy industrialists destroy Earth's atmosphere with factories billowing carbon dioxide waste, and those living in man-made smog struggle to breathe in a food-and-water depleted world somewhere in a future century. (Remember that in the Tinseltown's version of life, the bad guys are always conservatives and the good guys are always the leftwingnuts when the opposite is actually true because (as noted previously) when the leftwingnuts reduce carbon dioxide emissions they are also reducing the amounts of both oxygen and water available to breathe, drink or grow food on planet Earth.)
The future, depicted in big and small screen films like Soylent Green and Terra Nova, if the left gets its way, will become Earth's reality before your grandchildren have grandchildren. How do I know that? Because the leftwingnuts like former Vice President Al Gore, Jr., who are becoming billionaires selling carbon credits today, are determined to erase the proliferation of carbon dioxide which they claim, without rhyme, reason, logic or truth, is the cause of global warning. And, if you don't believe them, they have built hundreds of flawed "scientific models" to prove their hypothesis.
They only left one thing out of their equation—the sun. Our sun. That great big sphere around which the eight or nine planets in our solar system rotate (depending whether you think of Pluto as a dwarf planet (smaller in size than our moon) or an ancient moon of one of the giant planets like Uranus or Neptune, or an escapee from some distant galaxy that was trapped in a weird elliptical orbit of its own around our sun. However, Pluto has five moons of its own so that's not likely. That, too, a discussion for another day.
Note: as you read this, remember why it is that we need carbon dioxide emissions. And, remember this as well: windmills and solar panels don't replenish the carbon dioxide we need to create oxygen. Nor do they create enough real electrical power to adequately replace carbon fuel generated electrical power, either; but that's not the point.
The point is that the Watermelons (politicians or activists who are eco-green on the outside and communist red deep down inside where politics control the gray matter) are advocates of reducing man's greenhouse gas footprints because they stand to make obscene profits buying and selling carbon credits in the make believe parallel world of saving the planet by reducing carbon emissions. In reality, we are slowly killing the planet by dramatically reducing the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere, and expanding the world's deserts by greatly reducing the amount of rainfall that will reduce the amount of arable land in the worldand the amount of water there is to drink. Whew. That was a mouthful. Particularly if you hold your breathe while you talk. That would be really hard to do if, in addition, if you didn't have enough oxygen to breathe when you started talking.
I can't remember ever suggesting that global warming wasn't real. Global warming is a cyclic fact of life. It just isn't anthropogenic (man-made). It's just that environmental thieves like Al Gore, Jr., George Soros, and lesser known carbon credit traders (green chip whores) who've created a lucrative 21st century industry selling carbon credits. What's a carbon credit? It's a financial instrument that allows the holder, usually an energy company or financial whores like Soros, Gore and scores of others who sell the credits to industrial polluters which allow them to emit tons of carbon dioxide waste and avoid prosecution by purchasing carbon credits from third world countries who don't have any factories and, thus, don't pollute. Credits are theoretically earned by countries or groups of small manufacturers that have reduced their greenhouse gases and pooled their emission savings by selling their credits to carbon credit hucksters. Carbon credits can be legally traded in the international market. A carbon credit is a generic term for any tradable certificate or permit representing the right to emit one ton of carbon dioxide or the mass of another greenhouse gas with any carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) to one ton of carbon dioxide.
The idea to devise, first a national, and then an international, carbon credit market was the genius of greedy ecoalarmists like Gore and his ilk who knew they were creating the world's most lucrative scam. All they had to do was convince the world that carbon dioxide was poisoning Planet Earth.
For the price of a well-furnished office just for show, the idea was to make it appear that concerned industrialists were part of an environmental effort to reverse the concentration of greenhouse gases over America's largest metropolitan centers by buying and selling carbon credits. Anyone with an IQ larger than their hat size who still lives in any of America's large metropolitan freeway commuter paradises, or those who work in what few polluted US industrial meccas still exist in the United States today, should realize without too much thinking that when an industrial plant or a large city in America is buying carbon credits from someone operating a non-polluting manufacturing concern in say, the West Indies, they likely couldn't legally trade carbon credits with that West Indies concern since they don't create environmental pollution, nor should they have any credits to sell. Furthermore, buying those credits from a seller in the West Indies won't reduce the pollution around that American city or industrial complex by as much as an iota
But since carbon credit buying and selling is a make-believe business, anyone can profit from trading in a commodity that doesn't really exist. Why would they? Because everyone profits—even those who are obligated to pay the carbon taxes assessed by municipalities, counties, States or the federal government. Because governments, which profit from taxing carbon emissions and those who profit from selling what they don't possess, all profit by raising prices of the energy they produce or the consumer goods they sell, or taxing the consumers who need the energy or the consumer goods
I suspect that the ecoalarmists of Al Gore's ilk are as much aware of that fact as I am. More important, so are the world's leading astrophysicists like Habibullo Abdussamatovmost of whom are members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], a scientific body of the United Nations formed by the World Meteorological Organization [WMO] and the UN Environment Program [UNEP] created through UN Resolution 43/53 to investigate global warming in order provide the world community with an objective answer to the question of whether or not global warming is caused by mankind, or by the furnance that warms or cools the celestial bodies in our solar system—our sun.
In 2005, before Al Gore created his video, An Inconvenient Truth, and before the Nobel Committee was pressured into giving the former US vice president Irena Sendler's Nobel Prize, Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg, Russia Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory was the first to announce that global warming was not caused by humans since he had detected the current warming cycle on Earth was also affecting our neighbors, Venus and Mars. (I reported this in Plain Talk on Jan. 10, 2010 in the article, "The real cause of global warming: Solar Cycle 24." Abdussamatov pointed to data published by NASA that month that the space agency harvested from NASA's Global Surveyor and Odyssey. NASA recorded that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars' South Pole had been melting for three consecutive summers. They also noted that summer temperatures on Venus had risen from an average of 470° to 513°. Don't know what the scientists at NASA think, but I personally don't think the melting of the ice caps on Mars and the temperature hikes on Venus are caused by too many sweating people on Earth, or too many flatulent cows. And, regardless how good Gore and the Watermelons are at spinning fiction into fact, he's going to have a tough time convincing reasonably intelligent people that humans on Earth triggered a wave of global warming on Mars and Venus. If anything is one, now there's an inconvenient truth.
If you didn't click on the video (above), do yourself an intellectual favor and click on it now. (When you finishing readhing that piece, click the return arrow to return to this article.) If you believe global warming is man-induced now, you won't when you finish the video. So, pop a bag of microwave popcorn and enjoy the feature.
On February 28, 2007 the National Geographic published an article with this heading: Mars melts; Hints at Solar, Not Human Cause for Warming, Scientist Says. Kate Ravilious wrote: "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a naturaland not a human-inducedcause, according to one scientist's controversial theory." Sadly, Ravilious, whose assumption was "dead-on accurate" was forced to tread on ice instead of being able to come out say that the environmentalists had fabricated anthropogenic global warming in order for a select group of Watermelons to become billionaires by trading in carbon credits so the repentive whoremongering profiteers could erase their carbon footprints and begin restoring the planet to its pristine Edenic state. "Mars," she noted, "appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures". She cited the data above that was reported by the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in 2005 that I reported on in 2008.
Ravilious reported that "...Abdussamatov believes the changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all of the climate change we see on both planets." Let me be more precise. The changes in the sun's heat output was due precisely to solar cycle 24. Based on the data released by NASA over the last five years from the world's leading astrophysicists, the majority of the world's scientists (who are not paid by the environmental lobby that funded Al Gore's science fiction odyssey, An Inconvenient Truth) now dismiss, out of hand, that global warming is man-induced. In fact, science flatly rejects every theory advanced by ecowackos like Gore and conclusively proves that every warming and cooling phase on Earth is tied to solar fluctuations.
In 2006, before Gore's Oscar, Nir Shaviv, an Israeli astrophysicist, denounced Gore's theories that global warming was anthropogenic, saying: "Solar activity can explain a large part of 20th century global warming." Shaviv argued before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—that there "...is absolutely no scientific evidence that proves CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the culprits that caused it...using computer models to find [ecological] fingerprints is hard..." because computer models are not based on facts but on suppositions of what previously happened, and what the author of the model thinks will happen in the future. In other words, the author of any computer model begins with a conclusion, and plugs in the data he requires to achieve that conclusion.
The problem with beginning with a conclusion and not the evidence that solves the puzzle is that any of the evidence which points to a different catalyst is ignored because it doesn't fit the conclusion. Shaviv admitted that "...a few years ago if you had asked me, I would have told you it was CO2. Why? Because like everyone else in the public, I listen to what the media has to say..." and every day the media reports became increasingly apocalyptic not because the evidence led there, but because the Watermelons needed it to go there. Yet, Shaviv admitted, "...there appears to be examples in our history when we had three times as much CO2 as we have today. There were periods when we had ten times as much CO2 as we have today. If CO2 has an affect on climate, then we should see it in the temperature reconstruction." According to Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottowa, "If we look at climate through the geological time frame, we would never suspect CO2 as a major climate driver"
Politicians no longer dare to express any doubts about global warning. Lord Nigal Lawson of the House of Lords in England noted on BBC that "...there is such intolerance of any dissenting voice. This is the most politically-incorrect thing possible—this climate change orthodoxy."
The official National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], NASA and the International Solar Energy Society [ISES] Solar Prediction Panel on Solar Cycle 24 was released on April 25, 2007. Solar activity is generally an 11-year cycle. Solar Cycle 24 began in 1994. About 80 years ago, astro-scientists discovered that the solar eruptions have an east-west orientation that reverse their magnetic polarity with each new cycle, creating what is, in reality, a 22-year cycle. When a new cycle begins, solar activity initially impacts temperatures at high latitudesat either the North or South pole. At midpoint in the 11 year cycle, usually at 5.5 years (although Solar Cycle 23 lasted 11.75 years), and impacted temperatures at the equator. The risk of 4 or 5 hurricanes are also at their greatest risks at that time. So, by the way, are the erratic cold-hot temperature swings that cause tornadoes. The Solar Prediction Panel postulated that 2012 would be a very bad year for hurricanes and tornadoes.
The Sun's solar cycles drive warming and cooling conditions throughout our entire solar system. Solar eruptions are responsible for geomagnetic storms that temporarily cripple electronic communications on Earth and can potentially damage the power grids that provide electricity to the industrialized nations on Earth.
We are now at the end of Solar Cycle 24. In the summer of 2008 we began to see the solar change play havoc in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Africa, bringing that season's hurricanes across the warm waters of the Atlantic to the even warmer waters of the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. But the hurricane season that year was projected to be a short one based on solar flare estimates from NOAA. They anticipated only about 90 solar flares that year compared to 140 in 2007.
What all of the global warming mumble-jumble comes down to is this: the 87% of the real astrophysicists and other real scientists (not the career political ecowackos with degrees who are designated as the government's top climate authorities but who don't know which end of the telescope to look through), the reality is that global warming and cooling is nothing more than cyclic events caused by solar storms.
The 13% of the political hacks have no interest in the views of the 87% since, in the minds of the left, the "debate is settled" simply because the politicians backing the 13% have the power to enforce their will. In 2009 the super-majority Democratically-controlled House and Senate enacted HR 2454, the American Clean Energy & Security Act of 2009 (to reward the participants of carbon trading). The bill, known as Waxman-Markey passed in the House with a "yea" vote from 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans.
Republicans voting for the Cap & Trade legislation that would have made billionaires out of scores of Watermelons were Michael Castle [R-DE] [Defeated, 2010] , Mark Kirk [R-IL] [Defeated, 2010] , Leonard Lance [R-NJ], Frank LoBiondo [R-NJ], Mary Bono Mack [R-CA], John McHugh [R-NY] [Defeated, 2010] . Dave Reichert [R-WA], and Christopher Smith [R-NJ]).
Voters need to keep in mind that allowing your Congressman or Senator to vote for Cap & Trade signifies you don't mind paying from four to ten times as much for electrical power; and you don't mind having an electronic Smart Meter attached to your house that will actually be able to shut off any appliance in your home if the bureaucracy thinks you are using it too muchparticularly air conditioning in the summer and heat in the winter. Depending on where you live, you may already have a Smart Meter attached to your home although, for the moment, they are being used like any traditional electric meter. Draconian monitoring of how you use your electricity will not begin until every home in the nation is hooked up, and a federal law enacted that will attach criminal penalties to those who bypass the meter.
HR 2454 died in the US Senate only because, in 2010, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] was running for re-election and Reid was smart enough to know that on top of Obamacare, voting in favor of Cap & Trade was a good way to lose your seat. As it was, SEIU had to create a power outage in Clark County, Nevada (Las Vegas) for an hour to fix the electronic voting system. When the power came back on, Reidwho was behind when the lights went outwon reelection
This is the reality of the myth called anthropogenic global warming. It doesn't exist. It never did. When Professor Tim Ball, from the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg in Nova Scotia was asked if he believed in global warming, he replied: "I believe in global warming. I just don't believe human CO2 is causing that warming."
Professor John Christy, Dept. of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Lead Author, IPCC sums it up best when he said "...I have often heard it is the consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue that humans are causing a catastrophic change in the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true."
The final authority on human-caused global warming, according to the media, is the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which declares it is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. They are, in their own opinion, the final word on global warming. Therefore, they are. Since thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC, the IPCC claims they all agree with their view that global warming is anthropogenic. As Christy noted, he belongs, and he disagrees. So does every intelligent man, woman and child who has stopped listening to the mainstream media selling a bill of goods to benefit the in the largest and most powerful industry in the country—politicians.
The IPCC generates reports (seldom, if ever, written by them) which supports the views and arguments of the eco-alarmists carbon credit merchants behind the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC]. IPCC claims to be the world's leading authority on climate change. It endorses the acceptable written views of a minority of IPCC members as the truth (although IPCC doesn't do any original research), nor does it monitor climate activity or any other related phenomena. It's assessments are always based on the views of the leftwingnuts, which include both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed text books, articles or scholarly papers.
The ecowackos in the IPCC claimed in their 4th Assessment Report that its 4,000 members were all [a] climate scientists or experts in global warming, and [b] all of them ascribe to the belief that man is behind global warming. Over 1,000 IPCC scientists are now challenging the IPCC claim of anthropogenic global warming because even a simpleton knows that only the sun determines the temperatures on the surfaces of the spheres orbiting it. That list, since 2009, has been growing by the rate of about 100 scientists per year. The 2010 US Senate Report on Global Warming reflected an increase of some 400 new scientists who joined the skeptics that year. An average of three new scientists a week were joining the skeptics. The Senate Report also noted that "...the 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists, totaling 52, who authored the IPCC's 2007 Summary for Policymakers."
The chorus of the skeptics continues to get louder because the realities of climate change are becoming more clear: global warming is simply a for-profit scheme making billionaires out of petty bureaucrats. Beginning with the Climategate Scandal of 2009, more and more noted voices who previously feared the political power of the leftwingnuts, began speaking out, denouncing global warming as a money-scam of the new billionaire's club headed by Al Gore, Jr.
On Nov. 19, 2009 a collection of over a thousand emails and other data files as well as data processing programs were leaked from the British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit that proved scientific fraud and data manipulation by leftwing scientists in their effort to make man-made global warming appear to be true. The data revealed that the deliberate corruption of climate science was a global problem just as it was a global scheme. Among the schemes revealed in the released data was that the 156 year old warming trend in New Zealand (from 1853 to 2008) came from falsified climate science data.
The CRU in England confessed to throwing out most of the raw climate data upon which the basic theories of climate warming were based, and manipulated the data to make their conclusions appear plausible. That data was used by the IPCC to create the core global temperature statistics that became the basis for the climate science reports by the IPCC. That false data was used by Barack Obama as the reason for the United States participating in the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in 2009. The CRU scientists admitted they deliberately destroyed factual data and replaced it with falsified data in order to obtain additional research funds which the honest data would never have received.
On Dec. 1, 2009 Philip Jones, the Director of the UK Climate Research Unit was forced to step down for falsifying data and overstating the case for man-made global warming. Almost two months later, on Jan. 28, 2010, the London Times reported that Jones had violated the law by refusing to hand over the CRU's raw data files for pubic scrutiny. Michael Mann, who was implicated in the scandal was investigated by Pennsylvania State University—which brought Climategate to the United States, where US government support, and the sanctioning, of global warming, should have died a bittersweet death. The Climategate emails showed how, from the onset of the Obama Administration, all of the global warming data centers in the world, including NASA and NOAA at that time, manipulated global warming data to suggest that global temperatures rose much faster than they actually did by reducing the number and location of reporting stations used to calculate global temperatures from about 6,000 in 2009 to about 1,500 today.
Stations in the third world temperate zones were virtually eliminated, allowing the weather-meisters to extrapolate (guess) the average global temperatures by deciding what the average temperatures were in the 4,500 weather stations they no longer monitored, allowing NASA and NOAA to "fill-in-the-blanks" and skew the numbers however they needed them to show that the average global temperatures were rising when they weren't.
Sadly, no readers of the leftwing mainstream media in the United States wondered why the news that was fit to print didn't include the fact that the leftwingnut media had subverted the global warming scientific peer review process by making sure that information did not reach any newspapers which treated global warning in a skeptical manner. The left, which controls the slant of the news in over 90% of the newspapers in the United States, and all but Fox News on television, believes if they don't print a story it doesn't exist. Which, of course, is the real reason that print newspaper readership is down over 40% since 2009 when Obama moved into the White House. When the press stopped reporting what the public knew to be the real news for a made-up Gray Lady version of fake news, the public simply boycotted that media. Why read a newspaper that makes up its own version of the news and pretends what's happening to America and the world is not happening and, conversely, what isn't happening is?
That statement is borne out in scores of Climategate emails. CRU "scientists" openly discussed techniques they used to subvert the peer review process to make sure that skeptic newspapers were excluded from access to information they could fact check. When the CRUs reduced the number of weather departure tracking stations and hard data began to downtrend, the influx of phony data displayed criminal intent on the part of the global warning hucksters who were defrauding factory owners, cities, States and most of, the taxpayers of the United States in cap and trade schemes designed to drive America's thriving middle class into an overtaxed and largely unemployed, and more heavily regulated, working class.
Increasingly, as skepticism of the global warming scheme became more vocal as Climategate shattered the myth, scientists in the world's colleges and universities, government think tanks and government agencies like NASA and NOAA began speaking out. Noted Princeton physicist Dr. Robert Austin was one of the first to turn on the climate change advocates, saying "...I view Climategate as science fraud, plain and simple." UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zonta issued a public statement saying his "...Climategate colleagues, Michael Mann and Phil Jones should be barred from the IPCC process." Zonta continued: "By writing these lines, I will just probably achieve that a few, if any, of my future studies will, once again, not see the light of publication." I would take Zonta's statement a step farther and declare that the whole IPCC organization should be banned from the IPCC process.
When Climategate broke in 2009, UN lead author Richard Tol lamented that he had grown disillusioned with the UN IPCC, which, he said, had been captured by climate change profiteers. He insisted that the chairperson of the IPCC as well as the chairs of the IPCC working groups be removed. Tol also demanded the suspension of the IPCC itself. Yet, in 2010, Tol was named IPCC's lead author. It might be interesting to note that both Zonta and Tol are not included on the IPCC's list of dissenting scientists although both are.
As the global warming advocates extol the soon-coming demise of Planet Earth through the melting of the arctic and antarctic ice caps and the rebirth of Panthalassa, the universal ocean which, they surmise, will ultimately surround the rebirth of Pangæa, a supercontinent sprinkled with the highest peaks of the current five continents, Nobel Prize winning Stanford University physicist and global warming skeptic Dr. Robert Lughlin told the world to "...remain calm. The Earth will heal itself. Climate is beyond our power to control. Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geological time, something that the Earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself."
Brazilian geologist Geraldo Luis Lino, who authored the 2009 book: "The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency" said: "Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted in the attempt to impose an Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW] theory that is not supported by any physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks."
Aviation and space scientist Burt Rutan who was named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people in the world in 2004 said that "...those who call themselves 'green planet advocates' should be arguing for a CO2-fertilized atmosphere. Diversity increases when the planet was warm and had high CO2 atmospheric content...Al Gore's personal behavior supports a green planet—his enormous energy use with his four homes and his 'bizjet' does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to 'save' the planet."
"Because the greenhouse gas effect is temporary rather than permanent," says Hebrew University Professor and Honorary Fellow with the Institute of Economic Affairs, Dr. Michael Beenstock, "...predictions of significant global warning in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data." And, the view of South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of South Africa who added, "The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception—so, it's fraud."
In reality, anthropogenic global warming is a fraud committed by every climate scientist, real or make-believe, who perpetuated what they knew was a lie from the start. In 2010, now defunct Newsweek Magazine (last issue in Dec., 2012) took a stab at honesty when they wrote that "once celebrated climate researchers" who "lost the public trust from a cascade of scandals," compared climate change gurus with used car salesmen. Today, less than 20% of IPCC's "scientists" believe in anthropogenic global warming, yet the working class leftwingnuts continue to follow the well-paid anthropogenic global warming leftwingnuts who are paid to lie to the ring-through-the-nose working class imbeciles who play follow-the-leader for a welfare check.