Here's yet another excellent piece.
It makes points to help counterbalance the one-sided extremist orthodoxy by the liberal-left enviroillusionists.
It reminds us of things that aren't being mentioned, as mentioning them would tend to produce increasing, spreading doubts as to the dogmatic declaration of the United Nations's "IPCC" political report.
For one thing: did you know that Antarctica is actually getting colder? If there's "global warming", then how come not everywhere is warming?
How do you explain snow and ice in Texas this winter if the climate is supposed to be warming? One would expect Texas to be an oven, for Heaven's sake!
There's more, so definitely read the whole thing for yourself. The MSM is very likely not going to give you the facts that countervail the IPCC dogmatism.
The article reminds us that 20 years ago, climatology became politicized to focus upon theories relating to greenhouse gases... that's apparently a fetish of many environmentalists. No wonder it appears that environmental science has failed to pay equal attention to many other environmental issues of great importance in favor of the whole greenhouse gases/climate change being manmade orthodoxy/political correctness. Why this is isn't clear. The agenda of the environmentalist community and the liberal-left in this is only beginning to become visible (the key to figuring out what their agenda is is to look at monetary matters, like the emissions credit trading which would transfer oodles of taxpayer cash to poorer nations, like Russia, for example, and would therefore provide a loophole to excuse governments from actually doing anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thus enabling governments to claim that they made a difference when effectively all they did was redistribute wealth internationally via a massive scam).
And at the end of the whole scam, it's very likely that there'll be no reduction in greenhouse gases. In fact, it's very likely that they'll skyrocket... as they've been since the Liberals signed the falsely-deified Kyoto Protocol years ago and did nothing (with current Liberal leader Stephane Dion at the helm of the Environment portfolio in the former Liberal regime's Cabinet, which makes it bizarre that he claims today to be the "Champion of the Environment"... wouldn't it be funny to see him donning a big, green cape and proceeding to jump off of the Peace Tower, inspired by the delusion that he can actually fly?).
And it's very likely that the climate will feel pretty much the same ten, twenty, thirty, even hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of years into the future. There's no proof otherwise. And, most importantly, there's no proof whatsoever that the carbon dioxide emissons from human industrial activity are causing much, if any, of the statistically-observed, if quite small, increases in global temperatures over the years, which, by the way, have been occuring since the Ice Age began to thaw out, and still is, except for a reversal in Antarctica.
And I fail to see any direct causal relationship between slight temperature increases and any climate change, which I really haven't observed, either, not to any extent that'd begin to concern me.
After all, it is unreasonable and arrogant of humanity to insist that it somehow knows that the planet is supposed to be static with respect to climate. After all, there's a consensus, too, amongst scientists, that the planet has changed drastically in all kinds of ways, including climactically, since it was initially formed billions of years ago. Therefore, slight, imperceptible-other-than-to-scientific-instruments changes that occur to such a thing as temperature cannot be seen as surprising, nor alarming. And certainly we cannot purport to say, without absolute proof, that mankind is responsible for it today whereas prior to the advent of mankind, the climate changed drastically, catastrophically, anyway, including massive global oceanic rising over continental landmasses, which themselves actually had broken up into smaller pieces and drifted apart... long, long, looooooooong prior to the advent of mankind's very first precursor, believed to have been some kind of fish, according to consensus and Darwinian theory, neither of which, admittedly, has been proven itself.
So do you still have no doubts whatsoever? Do you still want to be told what to think, what to believe... and to give your government a blank check upon which to write a figure representing a huge chunk of your already-huge paycheck deduction and watch them give it to some other country... possibly a country with plans at the top of its regime to someday attack us in war?
