Global Warming is a Complete Hoax!

Electrician wrote:The trees, they are a blooming!
Lovely, lovely day.




I know....
The dungeon keeper already told me to shut up...

Are you living in British Columbia or something? There are no bloomings here yet.

Electrician lives in Italy jimj_wpg. Trieste to be exact...

Freeman wrote:I remember at one time, all the continents were one land mass, but have been drifting apart for millions and millions of years. Whats Al Gore going to do about that?

LOL!

it's threads like this that make me glad I made the switch from newwinnipeg!

jimj_wpg wrote:NASA is now reporting that 2009 will continue to be a COLD year. No sunspots in 75 of the past 90 days.

We won't have really HOT summers again (a normal amount of +30 degree days) until 2013 or so.

What do they know about what type of weather we'll be having in 2013? Did they maybe forget what will be coming our way in 2012???

no no .. they are part of the cover up they did not forget

This is not technical- Please move it to FARCICAL!
or ALGORICAL!

I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

go on.....

What would NASA officials know about our weather?
They never landed a spacecraft in Manitoba.

Lorne Gunter on The Great Global Warming Swindle: Who's swindling whom?

"Ofcom is of the view that the audience of this programme was not materially misled in a manner that would have led to actual or potential harm.”

Ofcom is the Office of Communications, the British broadcast regulator — not unlike our CRTC — and the “programme” is a documentary entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle, produced by Britain’s independent Channel 4 last year.

Swindle was controversial from the moment it first aired because it dares to suggest a change in solar radiation over the past century is the cause of global warming, not man-made greenhouse gases.

To allow that there is any source other than man is heresy among environmentalists, journalists and many scientists. Their instincts being authoritarian rather than scientific, this group’s ultimate goal is greater government regulation of human activities that upset their ideological biases, particularly corporate and consumer activities. If it could be proven that warming is naturally occurring, rather than human-induced, there would be no justification for expanding government power in the name of saving the planet since natural warming would be beyond our ability to control.

When Ofcom ruled last week that Swindle’s presentation of the facts on global warming had “caused some concern” and that the show’s producers had selectively edited the views of two prominent scientists —

But the fact is, Ofcom actually ruled that Swindle did “not materially mislead” its audience.

The regulator further ruled that “in dealing with an issue such as the theory of anthropogenic global warming, which is the subject of scientific controversy, those involved in the debate will — by definition — disagree over the factual accuracy of each others’ claims.” Therefore, Ofcom acknowledged “that while there is a broad consensus amongst scientists, governments and the public that global warming is directly related to anthropogenic causes, this is still a topic of debate.”

In terms of balance, Swindle was not required to give opposing views equal weight since programs and articles supporting the theory of man-made global warming are widely available in all media. Furthermore, “Ofcom does not believe that … the omission of the views of certain environmentalists was misleading to the viewer.”

Ofcom allowed that in discussing public policy solutions to global warming, the film failed to represent both sides equally. But since prominent environmentalists such as David Suzuki and NASA’s James Hansen have called for the jailing of those who disagree with the global warming orthodoxy, it can hardly be said that Swindle’s opponents are any more even-handed.

Gee, who’s insulting readers now? If columns that attack global warming dogma are so bad, won’t readers see through them for themselves? Or are environmentalists the only people in the world to whom discernment has been given?

Calls for views such as those held by the producers of Swindle to be silenced reveal that the caller’s own arguments are weak and that their desire to control others is paramount to their belief in free speech and full scientific inquiry.

This thread shouldnt be butied in technical, should it?