Right Pundits

Thank you Jon, for your instructive visit.

Oh David, get your own Wikipedia page like Dr. Auer and your own expert credentials, and you just might have some credibility on the global warming issue. Always fun when amateurs try to discredit the experts.

David oh please…. The average educational background of the folks that post here is oh, Master’s degree plus. There is even a rumor that a scientist lurks here too…

McCain et al… how many times do I have to go through this with these uppity folks who come in here thinking they are the only ones who can think? It gets tiring…. zzzz….z……….z………………

Global Warming is certainly NOT man-made. Scientists have recently proven that cycles of global warming are caused by an increase in solar activity, which reduces the amount of the heaviest and strongest cosmic rays (�muons�) reaching the earth. When the sun is less active, more such rays reach the earth, where they stimulate the formation of low-level clouds, which cool the earth.

Evidence proves that cycles of solar activity correspond DIRECTLY to cloud formation and cool-earth periods. The effect of human-produced carbon dioxide is negligible – and certainly not sufficient to force the ludicrous (and evil) conversion to global socialism the Gore-Bull Warming advocates desire. If solar activity slows, the earth will cool. (Let’s figure out more about how the sun works before dismantling capitalist system that feeds the world.)

Further, evidence shows that increases in levels of carbon dioxide FOLLOW periods of global warming, they do NOT not precede them. Those increases are therefore a RESULT of the warming, NOT the cause.

If man-made CO2 cause global warming, then what caused every warming period in the earth’s past that preceded the Industrial Revolution? Leftists apparently are not aware that the sun and cosmic rays have been around a lot longer than power plants and automobiles.

The cosmic ray evidence also supports the odd situation where the Antartic usually gets colder when the rest of the earth gets warmer, and vice versa. That’s because low-level clouds COOL most of the earth, while they WARM the Antartic. (The reason has to do with the clouds being darker than the Antartic snow, although the clouds are lighter than the general land masses of the rest of the earth.)

The atmosphere contains marginally more CO2 now than it contained 100 years ago, but it contains far LESS than it has contained at many times in the earth’s recent history. When the earth was so warm that vinyards could be cultivated in England, it had more CO2 in the atmosphere – but certainly ni cars or power plants. When Vikings inhabited Greenland centuries ago, it was much warner than it is now. But they certainly had no SUVs carrying them across their grazing lands.

Gore’s “hockey stick chart” was fraudulent. It was modifed to intentionally OMIT the warming periods of the last 2,000 years. The fraud was exposed, but the mass media neglected to report it. Do some internet searching and you can readily find reports of the fraud. If Gore and his buddy Hansen faked one chart – who’s to say how much other data they manipulated?

http://www.colony14.net

Jules.
He’s professor of atmospheric science.
Climate change is called weather. The man does qualify to be taken seriously. More seriously than your semantic games.
Besides that, there are just as many qualified scientists if not more that agree with him.
Ia addition, your 90% are all funded by leftist or corporate organizatios who stand to benefit from the collateral commerce involved in gerbil warming.
At that point science is no longer science.
Government-funded scientists depend entirely upon politicians for their research money. Science, therefore, which by definition is an objective discipline, becomes instantly politicized: i.e. science is made non-objective.
Science becomes a thing of consensus – which by definition means that science is no longer science.
Did you know that two out of three scientists recently poled in each state of this country don’t believe that global warming is anything close to catastrophic? Did you know that over 17,000 scientists, ranging from climatologists to oceanographers to geophysicists, have signed the Oregon Petition, which declares that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate�?
Did you know that worldwide, that figure of scientists more than doubles?

Here’s a quote from the brilliant MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen;

“There have been repeated claims that this past year’s hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

Whats flimsy is that since the global warming hysteria began, all predictions of climate change related catastrophies have yet to happen.
On the contrary we have seen cooler temperatures,colder winters, milder hurricane seasons and increasing ice caps.