We never hear the good news about global warming and it's counterbalancing effect to the relatively cold world from which we have only recently emerged. It's not doom and gloom as the faithful would have you believe. One Canadian writer said. "Global warming hmmm - and that negatively effects me how?"
Let's consider the upside for once. I have yet to hear anything good from the mainstream media except how Gore and his band of hucksters are making out with billions of dollars from the faithful. While that is I suppose good news for them, it leaves me restless to tell the rest of the bright side.
Global warming in our fortunate generation. What luck! There will be: (Check these links from scientific studies to verify)
Above is a list of just a few of the benefits of global warming. We can't even imagine yet what great things another degree of warming might bring in the next 30 years. We're only seeing the tip of the global warming ice berg here!
I think I'll invest in Al Gore's carbon forgiveness company and make a killing!
Don't give up that SUV just yet. A new study shows that dams are worse than burning fossil fuels! Just when you were sure it was SUV's, or livestock, or moose, or those evil babies, you get the global warming rug pulled out from underneath you for the umteenth time. The new evil is those dams!
From: AccuWeather.com Global Warming Center - AccuWeather.com's Global Warming Center is an open forum that looks at every side of the issues of global warming and climate change with scientific clarity. (Take note of the last few words "climate change with scientific clarity." let's see how clear and scientific they really are.)
In their article they trot out an "expert" who says dams "emit very high quantities of greenhouse gases even comparable to, in some cases even much worse than fossil fuels like coal and gas." said Patrick McCully, executive director of the International Rivers Network in an article from News.com.au McCully said global estimates blamed dams for about a third of all methane emissions worldwide!"
Patrick McCully says dams emit "greenhouse gases even comparable to, in some cases even much worse than fossil fuels like coal and gas." This is the clear science that AccuWeather.com Global Warming Center brags about? This is absolute nonsense!
Well, which is it? Are dams comparable to or much worse than fossil fuels? This is not a scientific statement, it is braindead propaganda being accepted by the global warming faithful as science. This report does not document studies or methods and is highly suspect. Let's take a look at a "scientific chart" released a few years ago that supposedly breaks down the sources of methane emissions. Where in the "scientific chart" above are the dams which are responsible for being the greatest contributors of global greenhouse gas emissions? If this story by AccuWeather.com is correct then this whole chart is way, way off! These inconsistencies don't bother the fanatics and true GW scientific believers and they never will. Certainly such a gigantic cause of global warming couldn't have been missed before now!
The real problem with all of this blatant nonsense masquerading as science is the fact that they don't address the issue of greenhouse gas offsets delivered by the dams themselves. Dams are responsible for about one terrawatt of energy production worldwide and irrigate lands where plants can grow and absorb CO2. Without dams we would have to burn almost a billion tons of fossil fuels more every year. Why won't they ever, ever tell you about that? Because they hate dams, and are rabidly anti anything man-made. Such is their obsessive-compulsive disdain of humanity.
So, now we are supposed to believe that dams produce more methane than all of the tens of millions of square miles of swamps, marshes, wetlands, jungles, and bogs on earth combined? Where is the evidence? How did they measure the methane emissions around dams? Did they cover them with some really big plastic bag to trap the methane and measure it?
The emissions refered to in the article are also known as swamp gas. Swamp gas is said to have fooled many into believing they have seen ghosts or UFO's. This is a case of swamp gas fooling the faithful into believing they have seen a dam.
Swamp gas has been known by several names: ignis fatuus, will-o’-the-wisp, corpse candles, jack-o’-lantern, and marsh gas. A multitude of reliable references to and descriptions of this natural phenomenon have been found in prestigious journals such as Nature, Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, and Symons Monthly Meteorological Magazine. Some of these references are global in scope and span the years from the 19th century to modern times.
Characteristically, swamp gas is found in peat bogs, mud flats, marshes, swamps — and now dams wherever stagnant water coincides with the decay of organic matter.
In the early 1990’s, in defiance of IPCC projections, the methane concentration in the atmosphere abruptly stopped rising, and has remained nearly constant since then.
A recent scientific experiment has also yielded results pointing to the fact that all plants produce methane, and as the climate warms they produce more. In fact 600 million metric tons of methane a year are produced, 225 of those produced by plants. Now, the question is if warming produces more methane then why has the methane level been constant for more than a decade? Could it be that scientists really don't have a clue? Yet more scientific quackery!
I am quoting from their article - "What are the implications of all this for our ability to predict the future of the methane cycle? Let’s summarize what you’ve just read. (in their article) According to one set of papers, atmospheric methane could be suppressed in the future by controlling land fires. Or it could be that methane variations are mostly produced by wetland emission, driven by climate change as well as land use decisions, according to another set of papers. Or methane could resume its rise, toward a new steady state, because it is driven by increasing fluxes from melting permafrost peat and hydrates, according to observations on the ground.
The bottom line I take away from all this is that the available studies come to a strikingly divergent range of conclusions. We know a lot about the methane cycle, but as far as forecasting the near-term future, we have no clue. No one would build a nuclear reactor if our understanding of the underlying chemical dynamics were as fragile as this. Instead, we are taking the reins of a planetary biosphere. This is disturbing."
There you have it. "but as far as forecasting the near-term future, we have no clue." It would seem that based on their chart and the newly found evil of dams that they don't have a clue about the past either.
Let's wrap this up with a little common sense. Dams contribute to methane emissions, but they also deserve credit for reducing CO2 emissions and growing vast amounts of vegetation which uptake CO2. Dams are good! They are good for people and the environment. Period!
Once I began reading this alarmist story I couldn't put it down. It was such a fascinating piece of fiendish propaganda I was in awe. The journalistic fraud and scientific quackery here is as stunning as it is ghoulish.
“The most effective personal climate-change strategy is limiting the number of children one has,” the report states. “The most effective national and global climate-change strategy is limiting the size of the population.” Does this sound familiar? Does communist China ring a bell?
John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT, claimed if a couple has two children instead of three, it cuts the family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights from London to New York each year. Did you catch that? 620 flights per year? Let's do a little math! Their fuzzy outlandish math always intrigues me. (Not really)
The average person uses about 1.3 gallons (US) of gas per day. If we cut one child out of the family we will save at most 1.3 gallons per day (approximately 420 gallons/year). If that child lives the expected 78 years he or she will use 32,760 gallons over a lifetime. (As long as they are not Al Gore who has used millions.)
Commercial airliners bound from London to New York use a lot of fuel. The larger the aircraft the more fuel consumption. (Generally speaking) Let us assume John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT was referring to a smaller commercial airliner. A Boeing 757 will burn about 15,000 gallons (US) with a light payload. At 620 trips we can estimate the fuel consumption to equal 9,300,000 gallons. Now we must bear in mind that Mr. Guillebaud said that one child less will cut this amount each year!
Only Al Gore could use this much fuel each year and get away with it. A baby has no chance. The global warming fanatics would be and are calling for it's extermination. What other gems do they have in store for us ignorant readers?
"The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude (an order of magnitude?) greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights,” he said. “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account.” In the western European nations we already have less than two children per household! Why doesn't he take his message to Mexico or some other third world nation where they have large families?
What is their agenda? Population control? Do they want to reduce the population of western nations even more? You can count on it! These people are fellow travelers and comrades of "responsible nations" such as communist China.
Some scientists say that draconian birth control measures such as China's are wrongly overlooked in the fight against climate change, when the world population is projected to soar to about 9 billion by 2050 from 6.6 billion now. For those who don't know China has a global friendly policy of forced abortions for anyone daring to defile mother Earth with another baby. Are these ghoulish kooks suggesting that we adopt forced abortions and mandatory sterilization of women just like good old China? Let's see what the head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat has to say.
"Population is clearly an important factor," (In global warming) said Yvode Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, at U.N. talks trying to plan a new deal to combat climate change after 2012. Did you catch that? The U.N. is trying to plan a new deal (concerning population) to combat climate change.
“This is the extreme, utterly bizarre end of the environmental movement that you see in science fiction movies,” Dan Gainor, director of the Business & Media Institute said. “That’s how they view human beings – but conveniently never themselves. They think they’re the great enlightened ones.” How true!
This policy of depopulation of sacred mother Earth is near and dear to the U.N. Your babies or future babies are in their sights.
This sort of outrageous propaganda should be labeled by all as a tell of the demonic agenda planned ahead. I say:
Just when you were sure it was the evil SUV's causing global warming the UN comes with a report blaming our consumption of meat. Read the article hereNot to be outdone by the UN the ultra-leftist People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has offered a not so surprising solution.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined. Wow! More than all forms of transportation combined? I am speechless, not really. That's the sort of stuff I've come to expect from the most corrupt bureaucracy on the planet.
They (PETA) offer lots of salient gems such as: "Environmentalists are still pointing their fingers at Hummers and SUVs when they should be pointing at the dinner plate," said Matt Prescott, manager of vegan campaigns for PETA.
The UN and animal rights groups who almost always overlap in their missions, have coalesced around a message that eating meat is worse for the environment than driving. They and smaller groups have started advertising campaigns that try to equate vegetarianism with curbing greenhouse gases. But hold on just a second, is this good science?
What causes flatulence? (the most evil, destructive and offensive of greenhouse gases) Could the proposed cure cause more flatulent emissions than it is meant to eliminate, thereby worsening "runaway global warming"? You bet it will, but that won't stop them, they won't even flinch.
The agenda should be clear by now-Eliminate the west's standard of living which they have worked hard for and redistribute the wealth to those who will not work.
Matt Prescott said that his group had written to more than 700 environmental groups, asking them to promote vegetarianism, and that it would soon distribute leaflets that highlight the effect of eating meat on global warming. He also said "You just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist." Sounds a bit tyrannical to me. These people are all the same, they will not live and let live. They want control-they are control freaks! The most evil and destructive of human character disorders. They are little Hitlers willing to lie, kill, steal and more to control the thoughts and lives of others.
Now we will demolish their argument that vegetarianism will curb green house gas emissions. How will the proposed conversion of all people to the vegan lifestyle increase the flatulent green house emissions? Let's use a little basic science mixed with a little common sense.
Let us assume that over 6 billion people convert to a near vegan lifestyle. Bear in mind that there will still be most livestock left in the world since we will still need wool, leather, lanolin, milk, cheese, pet food, and other indispensable animal products.
We will only be able to reduce the current livestock population by 50 million or so. At the same time there will be 6 billion plus vegans. So for every cow eliminated we will have roughly 120 vegans.
Just a side note. In another article here at the Free World Survey we covered a story concerning moose. It seems the moose produce far more flatulent gas than cows. Click here to read how moose and other wild vegetarians emit global warming gases in copious quantities.
Vegans emit more flatulent green house gasses than meat-eaters. What causes flatulence?
Mammalian green house emissions are produced by the ingestion of flatulence-producing foods which are typically high in certain polysaccharides (especially oligosaccharides such as inulin) and include beans, lentils, dairy products, onions, garlic, scallions, leeks, radishes, sweet potatoes, cashews, Jerusalem artichokes, oats, wheat, yeast in breads, and other vegetables. Cauliflower, Broccoli, cabbage and other cruciferous vegetables that belong to the Brassica family are commonly reputed to not only increase flatulence, but to increase the pungency of the flatus. In beans, endogenous gases seem to arise from complex oligosaccharide (carbohydrates) that are particularly resistant to digestion by mammals, but which are readily digestible by microorganisms that inhabit the digestive tract. These oligosaccharides pass through the upper intestine largely unchanged, and when they reach the lower intestine, bacteria feed on them, producing copious amounts of flatus. In the case of those with lactose intolerance, intestinal bacteria feeding on lactose can give rise to excessive gas production when milk or lactose-containing substances have been consumed. For more documentation click here
Please note that meat does not cause flatulence! So, we give up one flatulent animal (a cow) and gain 120 other flatulent animals. (vegetarians) I don't know what volume of noxious gases are emitted by cows, but surely it cannot be more than 120 global warming chicken littles.
I have quoted this before, and I'll quote it again in the interest of saving the planet and on behalf of the sane people. Marie Antoinette would have said:
Yet another consequence of global warming - more crime! Oh God, why can't I be this creative?! No, you little people can't make this stuff up, only the folks at ABC are that smart. You can see for yourself - Climate change offers new criminal opportunities, experts warn
After reading the article it should be obvious what "powerful" minds are at work here. The first paragraph reads as follows;
"A meeting of global crime experts has conceded that climate change could spark criminal activities in unconventional areas." Did you catch that? They "conceded" as if to say that they were reluctant to admit it in the first place, but ABC came to the rescue and made them admit it!
This poor guy has been reduced to stealing bottled water. Curse you global warming!
So, what is the new global warming booty so alluring to thieves? - Water, copper wiring, and crystal meth. What?!!! Now, I can see where water might have something to do with global warming, but copper wire and crystal meth? These people must be on some serious drugs!
In case you didn't go to the article to see this gem in professional journalism let's take a look at the following statement from The commission's executive director of national criminal intelligence, Kevin Kitson -
"He says over the counter bans on pseudoephedrine drugs will start to restrict the availability of the main ingredient in crystal methamphetamines.
"We're seeing a change, for example, in the way in which clandestine laboratories are constructed," he said.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, (I'm still waiting for something about global warming) blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, ...
"We're making it very much harder for them to do that." End of story.
Now I ask you where is the global warming story? There is nothing in the story that corroborates the headline! Instead the story is about crystal meth. What does crystal meth have to do with global warming?!!!
These people are real Einsteins! This is the type of hysterical idiocy our media spews daily. What in the hell are they teaching our kids in college journalism schools? It would be better if they never went to these colleges. What a waste of time and money for the parents and students. Unfortunately one must have a degree read (indoctrination) from one of the "esteemed" journalism schools in order to get a job in the mainstream media.
As far as I can tell there are more horses rear ends in the mainstream media than there are horses! Global warming equals crime increases? - give me a break! No proof, or documentation, or evidence equals no story!
How many different ways can the GW extortioners be wrong and still retain any credibility? We have cited dozens of the more blatant examples here on Free World Survey. Somehow they get by with it. If scientists in any other field of study were this cavalier and careless with the facts they would have lost all credibility long before now. The global warming "scientists" and pundits seem to have infinite latitude in ignorance and outright fraud.
The real tragedy here is that many of the GW faithful will now see a story on drug crimes involving crystal meth (the global warming drug) and equate it with proof of climate change. They will no doubt conclude that global warming is causing the drug problem. I suppose it best to stop here before I give them any more hair brained ideas.
The enviro-wackos have a real situation on their hands. New studies show that moose are major culprits in global warming. Of course all herbivores/omnivores such as deer, bears, ducks and others emit high amounts of flatulent methane, (the most evil of greenhouse gasses) but the moose in particular is in the sights of the global warming faithful.
The crux of the problem is that there are millions of moose worldwide. Norway alone has over 100,000! This from Fox News:
"Researchers in Norway claim a grown moose can produce 2100 kilos of methane a year, equivalent to the amount of CO2 caused by a 8077 mile car trip, derspiegel reported. Norway's national animal releases methane through burping and flatulence... considered more harmful to the environment than carbon dioxide. There are estimated to be more than 100,000 moose in Norway."
What can be the solution to this gas-tly problem? Some of the faithful want to give them Beano! They argued in committees over a slogan for days and the top picks were: Beano for Bullwinkle! and Beano in every beast!
The catchy slogan - Beano in every beast! won out after it was pointed out by scientists that all vegetarians emit more methane than meat eaters. Therefore we cannot single out Bullwinkle because all vegetarians are to blame for global warming. Will vegetarians convert to eating meat to save the planet? Don't count on it.
But I say, Beano for vegan beasts! Save mother Earth from their noxious gasses now! Just as I suspected there's nothing like a big juicy steak to fight global warming, I think Marie Antionette said it best;
Is your child apathetic or indifferent to the global warming crisis? Not any more! Now you too can have these ultra trendy global warming toys for your children. You're sure to cause a sensation! But don't wait till Christmas (oops! we mean winter festival) Get 'em while they're hot!
No Baby Jesus here, just wholesome Earth friendly indoctrination for the entire family! You'll have peace of mind knowing your children won't be learning any myths, no just pure science!
Not sold in any big oil stores!
Buy now and you'll receive 10 whole carbon forgiveness credits from Al Gore's company!
Your children will learn to be hysterical the way they should be!
The kids will have hours of indoctrination with our new Jill Jitters doll. Her vocabulary matches that of any global warming disciple. (Minus some of the four letter words) She is state of the art and comes with over 100 well worn GW slogans used around the world. They'll learn winning slogans for any occasion whether it's debates, family reunions, arguments, or protests.
Buy now and you'll also receive your free copy of the Global Warming Bible - An Inconvenient Truth. No home or dorm room should be without two or three or more copies of this gem!
Not to be outdone by Jill Jitters is Knut! (Below) This cute little guy will guilt your children in no time! With over 50 manipulative statements designed to make them wish humanity would be exterminated from Mother Earth forever!
-But wait, there's more! They'll learn good science too! They'll learn how man-made global warming will cause:
Billions to die of floods, drought, famine and plagues!
Millions of species to go extinct!
Increased tsunamis!
Increased hurricanes!
Increased floods!
Increased volcanism!
The Earth to literally explode!
And much more!
And all of this backed by serious scientists! What more could you want for your children?!! Act now, before it's too late. Order today before the world ends! You'll be so glad you did, after all you can't take your money with you!
Now you can get all this for about the cost of one month of lattes! Shipping is free! (After paying carbon offsets for transport)
Sometimes I feel schizophrenic when I read all of the self-contradictory pro-global warming studies, stories, hysterical rants, and UN proclamations. I just don’t know how the GW faithful do it! They tell us more hurricanes, less hurricanes, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink, and the list grows everyday. It is through the chaos of these stories that the truth is striving to be told. It tears little by little through the weave of their web which has caught many unawares. As much as they try, they can't mend their web of deceit forever.
Let's take a closer look at how abundant these self-contradictory claims are within the GW cult. The list below is not complete, their dire and contradictory claims are too many to count. However this will give us good insight into the schizophrenia of the GW faithful.
Normally a good movie producer will hire a professional (Script Continuity Editor) to ensure the integrity of the story line. Making sure that the message and historicity of the movie are accurate and do not conflict with the facts either external (real world) or internal (story line). Now the continuity is important in the script because we want to stay in the same universe as our viewers.
You wouldn't want to have say, a WW ll fighter pilot flying a P-51 Mustang one minute and when the camera comes back around he's flying an F-15c Eagle. Or, you wouldn't want that pilot dying in an aerial combat scene, but is shown alive and well back on base minutes later. Yet, this is exactly what is happening in the different universe of the global warming cult. Even if they knew, the faithful are not allowed to talk about it, or even let anyone else talk about it.
I will get tons of hate comments from the cult faithful for bringing this up, but it is a matter that cannot be overlooked if we are to even pretend to be open-minded. They hate, yes hate anyone who has any objection to their sacred sacrament of global warming. This is for your eyes. They will not see as they have been blinded by so called "science."
99 percent of the faithful will not have read this far and will have just jumped to post nasty comments or hastily click away. Their pathological disdain is really a phenomenon of recent history. The only other parallel of such zealous hate would be the Nazis of pre-WW ll Germany. Surely you have seen or felt their fangs of criticism in comment boards and on their websites.
What is the essence of our controversy? Stay with me for an expose which will prove profoundly penetrating and sound in conclusion.
Firstly, let us agree on a few necessary points. (Sometimes called the rules of logic)
1. Truth is that which cannot contradict itself.
2. Truth is that which is.
Now, let us reason together. If (in the real world) we have information that is self-contradictory then we know that it cannot possibly be true.
Ahead we have a list of contradictory claims by various global warming "experts." Each item has a link which I hope you will follow to see their claims in their own words for yourself to verify that I am giving you accurate information.
Predictions of global warming "experts" - Take your pick
The "experts" claim that their climate change models have vindicated them and proven global warming is a fact. Why do they say this? Because, they say the predictions made by their climate models have been so very accurate.
Now watch this carefully, for some folks this is tough stuff. Let's use a bit of the logic we hopefully learned by the time we graduated kindergarten. If you make computer predictions that a coin will come up heads or tails when it lands you will be right 99.9999% of the time. This is exactly what they have done with global warming. When there is a drought it is global warming. When there is a flood it is climate change. When it is unseasonably hot it is global warming. When there is a cold snap it is climate change.
It is important to note that the words used cover all possible contingencies. Notice that in the winter when there is a cold snap they do not blame it on global warming, no, now it is climate change. This is sophistry meant to keep the faithful from questioning their own hallowed theory. What possible motives can we assign to these word games? It can only be deliberately planned deception.
Someone has thought this out. It cannot have happened spontaneously out of relative chaos. Everyone (the faithful) seems to understand the rules of the word games of global warming somehow. How can this be? The faithful were never taught this in any classroom or forum. This can only be the result of brainwashing. If so, the planning must have been even more thorough than we have given the architects credit for.
Now the show stopper. The part I know you were waiting for. If "scientific" claims or predictions are self-contradictory then they cannot possibly be based on the truth.
Global warming, or climate change can only have been an engineered hoax.
I find it alarming that pro-global warming stories are invariably ranked higher in the search engines than the voices of dissent. What are the chances that stories debunking global warming would rank lower in the major search engines than pro-warming stories? Is it possible that global warming dissent is being suppressed? What sort of al-gore-ithms are the search engines using?
Just what are search engine algorithms? They are a set of rules, used to search the web for the keywords of the term that you input. They are likewise the criteria for ranking websites and webpages according to keyword density and placement within the text of that site. Exactly how a particular search engine's algorithm works is a closely-kept trade secret.
Is dissent being suppressed? Try this experiment for yourself sometime. Google these keywords; global warming + Polar Bears. Do you see any dissenting articles on the supposed plight of the polar bears on the first page? The top ranking story can be seen here at the DailyMail.UK it even shows Polar Bears (see below) supposedly stranded on ice with an ominous headlie: Global warming sees polar bears stranded on melting ice
This photo was debunked long ago but they still use it to to promote a lie. See my article Global Warming Hoax Exposed: Polar Bears In Peril. Although these stories were debunked and exposed as frauds Google has them in higher ranking than all dissenting articles.
This is the just one example of the global warming journalistic fraud which we have come to expect. What are they teaching in journalism school these days?
Let’s try another search just to help confirm my point a little more concretely. Google this; global warming + earth explodes. These global warming articles make the dire predictions that the earth will explode and become another asteroid belt in the solar system. Of course all articles published in support of this asinine claim are ranked higher than those disproving it.
As we have seen in the instances above one cannot argue that the search engines rank publications based upon truth or sound science. They seem to be ranked according to politically correct hysterical trends. Are they helping to push an agenda?
Perhaps some of you are saying to yourselves that maybe, pro-warming webmasters are more savvy when it comes to search engine optimization (SEO) and are therefore smiled upon by the search bots. As a webmaster I know how capricious the search bots are. You can have hundreds of keyword rich pages of content with lots of relevant inbound links and still not do as well as a site with only a few pages of relevant content. This is a well known source of frustration for webmasters around the world. Good index rankings for keywords are very difficult to achieve.
How is it that pro-global warming publications consistently get higher rankings? There are tens of thousands of global warming articles published on the web both pro and con. It defies logic and common sense that only the articles supporting global warming are highly indexed. Well, that is unless you know what’s going on.
When we take a look at the alliances between the global warming crusaders and the search engines it all suddenly becomes clear.
No, I’m not talking about some unknown, murky and bizarre conspiracy theory. Google, Yahoo, and to a lesser degree MSN have a long established track record of censoring the Internet. Can we say communist China? Yes, global warming faithful (and un-faithful), the search engines do regularly censor the Internet. See Here and Here and Here and Here and Here. There are many more documented instances of the un-holy alliance between search engines and government censorship. I could have literally cited pages and pages of sources such as above, but I don’t want to belabor a point that is really common knowledge anyways.
Did you know that in much of Europe the search engines filter out all information that runs contrary to the establishment’s version of the Holocaust of Nazi Germany? Why would they do this? I know, I know, you are saying that every aspect of the Holocaust is a fact, so opposing points of view should be censored out. Right? WRONG!
Censorship is always wrong!
ISPs such as AOL (but, certainly not limited to AOL) also censor the Internet. If your site does not comply to the politically correct winds of the day ISPs can and do punitively censor and sanction websites in the form of bandwidth restriction and other restrictive measures. There is a powerful compulsion on part of website publishers to comply and be more PC. This again is CENSORSHIP!!! For further documentation see Here , Here and Here.
After Al Gore left the White House in 2001. He was hired on as a member of the board of directors of Apple Inc. and also serves as a Senior Advisor to Google Inc. Sort of strange and convenient bedfellows in light of the fact that Al Gore (“inventor of the Internet”) is the major crusader in the global warming war effort.
I don’t know how the search engine al-gore-rhythms always seem to index pro-global warming stories higher than those that rightly debunk various claims. Could it be that Al Gore is influencing the major search engines? He is after all a Senior Advisor to Google the most used search engine in the world.
As far as I can tell I am the only one who seems to have noticed this blatant censorship of the internet. Where are the "concerned" voices of the ACLU or other so-called watch dog groups?
So far we have seen that the search engines rank published articles not based on truth, scientific validity, keyword density, relevant inbound links, site popularity, or any of the attributes that we might expect. The only other alternative is that the search engines are deliberately calibrated to favor pro-global warming publications. This is obvious censorship.
Of All The Tools Of Tyranny Censorship Is The Most Evil
So much for Googles hypocritical slogan; "Don't be evil"
Oh, how I wish, I wish, I wish I were creative enough to make this stuff up! Just when you thought you'd heard it all. This is soooo bizarre and asinine I would have thought even the Gor(acle) faithful would reject it. Not so. Yes you read it right, the faithful are trying to blame the Minnesota bridge collapse on you and I. We make such handy villains in all of their stories. Here's how it goes. Are you ready for this thrilling chilling (I mean warming) ride in liberal logic?
First from Climate Progress.org The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics
Did Climate Change Contribute To The Minneapolis Bridge Collapse?
A former member of the Clinton administration, and current Senior Fellow at the virtual Clinton think tank the Center for American Progress, (code for progressive) claimed Monday that global warming might have played a factor in the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis.
Writing at Climate Progress, the global warming blog of CAP, Joseph Romm (above) - who served as Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy in 1997 and as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary from 1995 though 1998 - stated in a piece incredibly entitled "Did Climate Change Contribute To The Minneapolis Bridge Collapse?" (Note how the question is posed in the affirmative, which is used to elicit an affirmative answer.) Mr. Romm states:
I was skeptical at first, but after doing a Google search - and after NBC reported Sunday that National Transportation Safety Board investigators are "looking at everything" including "the weather" - I think it is a legitimate question to ask.
As I have pointed out in other articles, to the faithful any adverse event may be legitimately attributed to Anthropogenic Global Warming. (AGW) AWG, that's one of their big fancy words they craft to make them look and sound authoritative - smart. It means man-made global warming where I'm from. But wait, not to be outdone in the anthropo-hate speech is another one of the AGW faithful to further bless the newest holy proclamation.
This absolute jewel of liberal logic from Melissa Hortman (D-MN)
Melissa Hortman of the Minnesota House of Representatives and long time greenie - “speculated that 90-plus-degree heat Wednesday and the above-normal temperatures of the past two summers may have been a contributing factor,” and said “You wonder if this bridge was built to withstand the massive heat we have had this summer.” Or even if it was built to withstand heat, whether its structural deficiencies undermined the design integrity to a point where heat contributed to the collapse.
Did you catch what she said? “You wonder if this bridge was built to withstand the massive heat we have had this summer.” It was 91 degrees that day. Steel doesn't begin to weaken till the temps reach in excess of 570 degrees Fahrenheit. I don't recall seeing weather reports of 570 degrees for that day. She calls 91 degrees massive heat? By her standards of massive heat we should be seeing bridges falling everyday here in the desert southwest where I live. Our temps are above 105 (14 degrees more) most every day.
According to NOAA stats on Minneapolis weather the 2006 summer was hotter than this summer. (2007) Why didn't the bridge collapse in 2006 when it was warmer and the heat was much more "massive"?
Engineers design these all-weather bridges with extreme conditions in mind. They allow plenty of leeway for high temp thermal expansion in the joints. There would not have been structural buckling due to so-called "extreme heat" that day.
I don't pretend to know what caused the bridge to collapse. I don't have the facts. How is it they are promoting the least likely and most preposterous cause and getting away with it? That's like me blaming the stock market plunge on say Al Gore charging 100,000 per global warming lecture. (of which he has given over 1,000) He has made hundreds of millions off of his Church of the Immaculate Gor(acle) faithful. This is draining the economy of his followers, and adversely affecting the stock market. Now, he is also flying around giving his holy pronouncements and using up lots, and I do mean lots of fuel so this drives up the cost of gas and hurts would be investors even more.
You get the picture. As much as I would like to blame Al Gore I can't, it would be just plain nonsense. But, somehow they get away with this same sort of hyperbole constantly. I hope (and I have no doubt) Al Gore will make billions off of his useful idiots.
Don't feel too bad about yourselves there is redemption, you too can buy "Carbon Offset Credits" from Al Gore's firm and receive Gaia (Mother Earth) forgiveness for the right amount of protection money.
As long as anything bad happens in the world you can bet the Gorleones will be there to accuse, extort and offer protection for a price. And all of this while you and I are made out to be the villains and they are the global saviours! How incredibly ironic! Just you never mind that the Gorleones use more fuel in a week than we will use in our entire lives. Feel guilty yet?
Another Global Warming Hoax Exposed: Polar Bears In Peril - On The Brink Of Extinction
I don't want to elaborate on this expose too much for fear I may take away from the overall message of the video below. The message here is loud and clear. The global warming fanatic fringe will concoct, foment, advance, endorse, coddle, and promote any lie no matter how brazen or manipulative in order to further their agenda. The proof is in the video below.
Now we should be asking; why don't we see any reporting exposing this outright fraud? Why isn't anyone confronting Al Gore on this inconvenient lie? Are forces conspiring? You bet!!! When the truth is suppressed on such a large scale as seen in the video above you can be sure much mischief is well afoot.
So, we can be good global citizens and just pretend not to see the truth here, or we can acknowledge it and tell those we care about. Tell them the truth. They/we are being indoctrinated!
The global warming crowd lies, deceives, and manipulates the masses (as seen in the articles on this blog) constantly and unashamedly. This is not the spirit of love or caring. They are not lovers of truth or even their fellow man as they would have everyone believe. In all forms of human relations love and respect are built upon the foundations of truth and transparency.
They are like an abusive spouse who when caught in lies attack out of fear of being exposed. Their position is based in fear and loathing of their fellow man. Just listen to the way they indict humanity for all of the worlds problems real or not. You never hear anything positive about humanity from them. They are the haters!
Remember that if the good people do nothing the abusive fanatics will win just as Hitler proved. Silence is consent!
In a recent Newsweek cover story article (April 16) entitled "It's Hip to Be Green," Newsweek correspondent Anna Kuchment states with pride that young people have "woken up the the realities of global warming." She cites a survey that says a majority of teens believe we need to take "immediate, drastic" action. She also says that this generation is the first to feel the effects of climate change so dramatically because of freakish weather patterns and tragedies like the "Christmas 2004 tsunami."
Anna Kuchmant, states "A higher percentage of young people also say they understand global warming well and believe it results from human activities as opposed to natural changes in the environment." If these young people really understand global warming as she crows then they should avoid Anna Kuchmant and the Newsweek propagandists. Here's why:
A tsunami is not a weather event caused by global warming! Newsweek correspondent Anna Kuchment and her boss, Managing Editor, Richard Stengel should know that a tsunami is "a series of waves created when a body of water is rapidly displaced on a massive scale by an earthquake, volcano, or meteorite." Tsunami's are not caused by global warming! This nonsense is pure propaganda - just one more example of journalistic fraud out of many.
If this were an isolated example I wouldn't be so alarmed, but this is becoming the asinine rule in modern journalism! You would think this would harm their credibility. Not these days! It's quackish bafflegab like this that makes people who are awake doubt global warming, and for good cause!
Oddly, according to the media reports, warmer temperatures never seem to have any positive effects on plant or animal life or food production. They never mention the people who won't die of cold related causes. This should serve as a warning that there is an agenda being promoted.
Did Newsweek's Managing Editor, Richard Stengel and correspondent Anna Kuchment pass Elementary school science? They need to go back to remedial school and get out of the news business right now! They are dumbing people down. Stupidity is contagious.
Well, I don't really believe they are that stupid. I believe they are deliberately lying to the children in order to scare them into accepting global warming as a man-made present danger. This is manipulation and thought control. They are doing this all under the color of authority. It is evil no matter how you look at it. There are two kinds of people; those who want to control others and those who want to live and let live. These control freaks are showing us that they will do just about anything to advance their agenda.
When we look throughout history and we examine evil people such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and the present global warming fanatics we see one common solid thread - the desire to control others. They want control and should be viewed as extremely dangerous. If they are willing in these early stages to lie to the children what else are they capable of?
You may be saying right now that I am exaggerating. Did you know that many scientists who speak against global warming have had their careers destroyed for not agreeing with these fanatics?
Still think they are no danger? At the Live Earth concert Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tells us what he has in store for global warming deniers, "This is treason and we need to start treating them as traitors." The crime of treason is a capital offense and is punishable by death. Are these fanatics live and let live? No, they are the worst kind of human beings. They want power and control. You will embrace their religion of man-made global warming or else!
Still think I am exaggerating? French President Jacques Chirac provided the key clue as to why so many in the international community still revere the Kyoto Protocol, who in 2000 said Kyoto represents "the first component of an authentic global governance." Let's translate; global warming is to be the foundation of global government. You see, it's all about control and power.
Let me translate the slogan above: Global warming above all - even the truth.
What do the Global Gestapo have planned for deniers? Grist Magazine's David Roberts said, "the solution... (sound familiar?) we should have war crimes trials for these bastards - some sort of climate Nuremberg." He's definitely not alone. This from Media With Conscience, "Our planet the Earth - is under acute threat from Climate Criminals threatening the Third World with Climate Genocide and the Biosphere with Terracide (the killing of our planet)" So deniers are being labeled as Climate Criminals guilty of Climate Genocide and Terracide.
Guess who is guilty? Only the deniers. The Al Gores and David Rothschilds of the world who together emit more green house gasses in one day than most small towns are the Climate Saviors. What a twisted eco-theology!
How many times have you heard that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that man-made global warming is a fact? Well, here are some serious scientists who are debunking the scaremongering on climate change. Scientists like MIT's Richard Lindzen, former Colorado State climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr., the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer and John Christy, Dr. Hans von Storch, a noted German climate researcher, Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, Colorado State University's William Gray, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Oregon State climatologist George Taylor and astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, to name a few. There is no scientific consensus on global warming!
The real scientists listed above are in the sights of the eco-whackos. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by telling the truth. Why would they risk it all if they were lying? I've heard of people risking it all for the truth, but never for a lie.
The global warming fanatics are telling you what they have in store for you. It is very reminiscent of Hitler's Mein Kampf which most dismissed as merely the empty rants of a madman. They couldn't have made a more terrible miss-calculation!
Where in the "scientific chart" above are the dams which are responsible for being the greatest contributors of global greenhouse gas emissions? If this story by AccuWeather.com is correct then this whole chart is way, way off! These inconsistencies don't bother the fanatics and true GW scientific believers and they never will. Certainly such a gigantic cause of global warming couldn't have been missed before now!
Swamp gas has been known by several names: ignis fatuus, will-o’-the-wisp, corpse candles, jack-o’-lantern, and marsh gas. A multitude of reliable references to and descriptions of this natural phenomenon have been found in prestigious journals such as Nature, Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, and Symons Monthly Meteorological Magazine. Some of these references are global in scope and span the years from the 19th century to modern times.
The UN and animal rights groups who almost always overlap in their missions, have coalesced around a message that eating meat is worse for the environment than driving. They and smaller groups have started advertising campaigns that try to equate vegetarianism with curbing greenhouse gases. But hold on just a second, is this good science?
