Umm, where is the Global Warming?

Al Gore’s claim last week that the Climategate emails were insignificant relied on two main defences. Both are so flagrantly wrong that it’s not enough to say Gore is simply mistaken.

No, Al Gore is a liar.

Read full article

http://networkedblogs.com/p23015008

The year also saw a hugely destructive ice storm in north Arkansas to open the year, and a cool summer, with no temperatures of 100 degrees or higher recorded during the year at Little Rock.

Now that global warming is being exposed as a gross manipulation of junk science, it is important to remember that this is not the first time in our nation’s history that the Progressive community has used junk science in order to force their social agenda on an unsuspecting population.

Back in the early 1900’s, up through World War Two, the progressive movements of America and Europe committed large scale genocide with their progressive Eugenic “science”. In fact the term genocide was coined to describe what the Progressive Eugenic movement did in this country and in Germany.

Not many people understand the crime these American Progressives committed, because public educators and other liberal professors just can’t wrap their rigid minds around the concept that the origins of their current religion are soaked in the blood of their own dark history.

The whole ugly truth about how American Progressives directly inspired Adolf Hitler and his Reich, is contained in a masterpiece of writing by Edwin Black, War Against The Weak.

Read more at the source…

M4GW
December 15, 2008
Get the Digital Files Here!
For your iPhone, iPod, or DVD!
http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/2008/12/the_twelve_days_of_global_warm_1.html

I took the popular Christmas Carol, The Twelve Days of Christmas and “Greened” it up a bit.

Check out our website
http://www.m4gw.com

Become a member of Minnesotans For Global Warming Today!
http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/2008/12/give_the_gift_that_keeps_on_gi.html

NICENECOUNCILdotcom
December 18, 2007

Some people hold that the threat of climate change is so great that we need to fundamentally change the way we produce and use energy. What’s your response to this view?
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Climate keeps changing all the time. The fact that climate changes is not in itself a threat, because, obviously, in the past human beings have adapted to all kinds of climate changes.

The argument is that there’s a new cause for climate change, which is human beings. And that the dimensions of this change might exceed what is natural or normal.

Well, there’s no question in my mind that humanity is able to affect climate on a local scale. We all know that cities are warmer than the suburbs or surrounding countryside. So there’s clear indication that human beings, in producing energy, in just living, generate heat. We’re not going to go back to living without energy.

Whether or not human beings can produce a global climate change is an important question. This question is not at all settled. It can only be settled by actual measurements, data. And the data are ambiguous. For example, the data show that the climate warmed between 1900 and 1940, long before humanity used much energy. But then the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975. Then it warmed again for a very short period of time, for about five years. But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming.

More at the source.

Talk about the politics of fear. Sen. John Kerry and the Democrats are now re-branded global warming as a national security threat:

The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say. Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response…Lawmakers leading the debate before Congress are only now beginning to make the national security argument for approving the legislation.

Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a leading advocate for the climate legislation, said he hoped to sway Senate skeptics by pressing that issue to pass a meaningful bill.

Mr. Kerry said he did not know whether he would succeed but had spoken with 30 undecided senators on the matter…

Inconvenient truth: Ethanol subsidies ushered in famine, food riots, and rising greenhouse gas emissions. Can we classify Al Gore as a national security threat, too?

Iain Murray dismantles the new eco-apocalyptic spin and concludes:

If global warming can destabilize the globe, so can global-warming policies. That is one reason the world has not reached an international agreement on reducing emissions that binds everyone to reductions, and why we never shall with current technology.

Senator Kerry says that he wants a world free from the dangers of global warming. But the cap-and-tax bill he is promoting is more likely to give us a world with the dangers of global warming and the dangers of protectionist nationalism. That is a bad deal for the security of America — and the world.