Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
Are we a proactive nation or a reactive nation? Obviously we are a reactive nation. There is a vocal sector shouting about one interpretation of the changing weather patterns and people are reacting.
Religion is no longer desired path for a growing segment of the population. That doesn't change the fact that people have an inborn desire to believe in something. "Global Warming" fits all the requirements for being a religion. It requires faith. The consequences of disbelief and inaction are the end of the world. It's beginning to resemble a religion even more in its persecution of 'non-believers'.
A scientist with a descending opinion are mocked and either referred to as emissaries for an oil company or directly on their payroll. A reason for compliance is economic. There are people willing and ready in academia to give money to any theory supporting global warming. Contrary scientific studies are subject to censorship, loss of tenure, and ostracizing.
Colleges and universities have no relevance to the actual world. It's a bastion of the "those who can't - teach" ilk. The global warming brings a religious dogma purposely missing in consideration of the more traditional religions. Once communism's shinning example, the USSR, was proved a failure, they sought another "god" to worship. With Al Gore as the Messiah, they found one.
quote:
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation. All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry. Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions. Source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
quote:
The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk. Source: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_500531.html
quote:
Can we save the Democratic Party, and the rest of the nation, from the irrational, and often violent, temper tantrums of these New Age fascists?
A made-for-television documentary, aired March 8 on Britain's Channel 4, can prove to be one powerful remedy. Titled The Great Global Warming Swindle, the documentary is available HERE from the producers, Wag TV, in DVD format. A version can be found on the Internet (e.g., at YouTube), where the documentary is already becoming an underground classic.
The lie that no reputable scientist opposes the global warming myth is overturned within about the first five minutes of viewing: The film features more than a dozen experts, in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, and biogeography from such institutions as NASA, the International Arctic Research Center, the Pasteur Institute, and MIT. Source: http://mathaba.net/news/?x=552449
|
Justices push EPA to act on car emissions - 
Profile
? 
. My family migrated to California and homesteaded in Yosemite National Park in the 1870s. I plan on being here until I die.... this is my home and there is no place better that I have seen when all factors are considered... not to mention that I identify with the Californian culture... so does Daddy (his family has been here as long as mine).
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread