Great news for fellow non-believers...



http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K...article8383.htm


http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1...ottest_yea.html



The really funny thing is - I'm surprised it took this long for someone to come to this conclusion. As someone who is accustom to looking at graphs and what data looks like when a "counter" hits zero (lots of counters recycle to zero after a certain number of integers on networking hardware), that kind of jump in graphing is pretty tell-tale.

 

Hmmmm. Why is it that whenever there is a correction or retraction to climate information, it typically trends against man-made global warming? It couldn't be that most GW study results are usually biased in favor of blaming man, could it?

More and more scientists are coming out against the Al Gore machine. But you won't hear about them in the MSM.

 

Nice find UUronL, great articles.

 

As always a great read from Ron.

 

Back to the editing suite for Gore !

 

Another perspective - http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.html...ra081607_2.html

 

Very interesting post but as this guy says:

Schmidt, however, sees the situation differently. "If you can reframe this as a freedom of speech issue, or a nondisclosure issue, you can get people to say it's an outrage," he says. "That kind of stuff is a deliberate political tactic. There is a very vocal group of people who so desperately wish that global warming would just go away that any of these tactics are fair game."


...

 

It's interesting to note that fewer scientists seem afraid to oppose the global warming theory now. Looks like the tide must be turning.

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+...article8641.htm


As long as we're talking about things like freedom of speech, I believe that there is another basic principle of modern society that is in danger of being trampled by the global warming folks. That principle is the separation of church and state. I think that any legislature that might aim to curb the effects of global warming would be a blatent violation of this separation.

Global warming is nothing more than a belief. Laws (environmental or otherwise) don't get made because someone believes in something. They get made because someone can -prove- something. Michael Crichton frames environmentalism as religion in a speech with the very same title:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-envi...maseligion.html

"Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them."

 

Oh, this one's good too.


http://www.dailytech.com/Latest+Research+E...article8588.htm

 

What does environmentalism have to do with the topic title and also to the global warmign issue?!

I for one from all the facts i analised i came to my personal conclusion and came to believe in global warming but i''m by far no environmentalist.