Sunday, February 22, 2009

Of Course.....

I guess this is the end for Humans.

Except for this.

And this (oops).

And this.

Call me crazy, but I think I'm seeing a "full court press" on this. I think the acolytes of AGW realize a sea-change will come soon (maybe by 2010). If they can't get their agenda in place by then, they may not be able to at all. After all, there's been no net warming for 10 years and will possibly show a cooling this year. It is now necessary to scare the unthinking into forcing the agenda.

2 comments:

Ordinary Jill said...

All that shows is that some of the computer models and monitoring data are flawed. It doesn't mean that the earth isn't warming up, on average.

If the arctic ice weren't rapidly shrinking (making oil and gas drilling feasible in the near future), Russia would not bother sending submarines to plant their flag on that section of ocean floor.

You have the right to cherry pick data to support your belief system, but I do not find your arguments convincing. When we got record snowfall last year, you and your fellow travellers claimed that debunked Global Warming. By that logic, the record high on February 10 proves Global Warming.

Oh, and last month was a little warmer than average across the U.S.:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090209_januarystats.html

Deekaman said...

True that the US was a little warmer, but the overall planetary temperature was lower.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

10 years of flat-to-cooling. I throw the BS flag on AGW. Certainly to call it "fact" and invoke the onerous hand of government is a huge mistake on what is pretty flimsy evidence. 30 years (at best) of good data is not adequate. Further, computer models are GI/GO. If the premise is that CO2 causes AGW and the premise is wrong, the entire model is wrong. Much evidence indicates the CO2 follows warming, not the other way around. From a thermodynamic and chemistry standpoint, that makes more sense.

But that's just me.