The Latest “We’re All Gonna Die!!!” IPCC Report
Tags: global warming, International Organizations.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
You’ll first note that the “tags” on this entry include both “global warming” and “climate change”. The reason for this is because the global warming business is in the process of re-branding itself as the “climate change” industry – this because “climate change” is entirely non-specific and can be used to say that anything happening is the dire result of insenstive, greedy, racist, corrupt, sexist, imperialistic and homophobic (and necessarily American) action in the world. In other words, you can jam a lot more leftwing BS into “climate change” than you can into “global warming” – especially as there hasn’t been any increase in global mean temperatures for nearly a decade now.
Anyways, there is the new IPCC report out which re-hashes all the usual nonsense about global warming – this news story has a rundown of the “key findings”…among these findings, I found this one very interesting:
Global warming is “unequivocal.” Temperatures have risen 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. Eleven of the last 12 years are among the warmest since 1850. Sea levels have gone up by an average seven-hundredths of an inch per year since 1961.
So, we’re in a tizzy over, what? The prosepct of another 1.3 degrees over the next century? Or is it that we’re worried that by 2107 sea levels will have risen 7 inches?
To add a bit of kick to the report, they claim that between 20 and 70% of all species on earth will become extinct if we don’t act now to reverse this – as if they (a) know how many species there are on earth, (b) really know how much the temperature will increase, (c) know how even 1% of the world’s species will react to higher temperatures. The only thing we can be certain about is that environmentalist whackos won’t become extinct.
UPDATE: Scrappleface completely disposes of the climate change alarmism.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
71 Responses to “The Latest “We’re All Gonna Die!!!” IPCC Report”
Caucus of Corruption
“No, Casper, I think he suggesting that Libs are full of HOT AIR!! Just my opinion, though — I could be wrong.”
I would say that is probably true of all politicians.
Change “all” to “most”, Casper, and I’d probably agree with you. We have one Congressman from the Indiana district just to the south of mine, Mike Pence, that is a pretty straight arrow guy.
Let me spell it out.
From my Jan 2007 comment…
Pollution Is The Solution… to Global Warming!
Perhaps we need MORE POLLUTION to counter the “alleged” greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide, or at least that’s what some scientists are now proposing:
“…prominent scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner, have come up with a controversial proposal during the UN conference on climate change. They raise the idea of creating a ’shade’ of pollution to cool the earth. It’s like creating an umbrella of black smoke to prevent the sun’s heat from reaching the earth. It has to be reintroduced regularly, as the pollutants fall back into the Earth through rain and other means. It is a temporary relief while experts are looking for more permanent ways of dealing with the problem.”
“While carbon dioxide keeps heat from escaping Earth, substances such as sulfur dioxide, a common air pollutant, reflect solar radiation, helping cool the planet.”
“1969 – 1971: Backyard burning was banned in selected areas of California. Air Quality Standards were set by the new ARB for total suspended particulates, photochemical oxidants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide. National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) was signed. USEPA was created to protect all aspects of the environment. Federal New Source Performance Standards for opacity were published. Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 were enacted. They served as the principal source of statutory authority for controlling air pollution.”
…
AAR Theory of Global Warming: The Earth has been in a solar warming cycle. Pollution, including suspended soot particles and sulfur dioxide, blocks solar radiation and increases global cooling. Environmentalists pushed through regulations to clear the air. Clear air allows more solar radiation to reach the Earth and increases the global warming. With each passing year, the air got cleaner, allowing even more solar radiation to reach the Earth, increasing the global warming — melting the Arctic and killing the polar bears! Countries like China which burn more “dirty” coal are in effect helping cool the Earth. Efforts by environmentalists to clear China’s air will worsen and further increase global warming. Conclusion: Liberal environmentalists, lead by Californians, have caused the reversal from global cooling to global warming — and their ongoing efforts will further accelerate global warming!!!
AAR
AAR: Have you given any thought that some, perhaps a great deal, of the rise in temperatures, and the reversal from global cooling and an ice age, to global warming may have been caused by the Liberal environmentalists and enviro-nuts?
What is this — if you’re not successful at one argument, try the opposite? Actually, I do remember your “pollution shade” suggestion way back when. But I figured you dropped it since because more recently you’ve been more arguing that anthropogenic influences has little to no effect at all.
Anyway, I agree with you that cleaning up sulfates, particulate matter, CFCs and such back in the 70s did have an effect. But concern over a so-called “global cooling scare” wasn’t a primary consideration. It was far more about concerns regarding health (lead poisoning, pulmonary cancer, skin cancer, etc.) and the effect of acid rain on crop yields. At the time, those effects were far more obvious than the global cooling effects those substances had. In other words, there was a much stronger scientific concensus on the health and crop effects at the time than there was on the climate effects. There just wasn’t enough data yet available on the latter. I don’t know if you ever visited the LA basin (or Denver, or a variety of other places) back in the late 70s or early 80s, but it was pretty awful. It’s much better now. If you want to blame that on the envirocrazies, go ahead. I’d rather thank them. Then again, it didn’t take much to be an envirocrazy at the time. All you had to do was go outside and have your eyes start tearing, or play tennis for a half hour before starting to gasp for breath.
But if you’re truly advocating dirtying up the air again, it seems to me you have to address those concerns all over again. Good luck with that. On another level, I strongly suspect you’re right: “Countries like China which burn more “dirty” coal are in effect helping cool the Earth.” That’s a real concern. It is so in particular because it’s not just the “environmentalists” that are concerned about it, it’s becoming true of a goodly portion of the Chinese population, as well as that of India. They’re getting a little tired of choking to death. So I strongly suspect that the Chinese and Indian governments will soon be more motivated to deal with that problem and probably less so about the GHG problem.
I suppose one could consider that reason to throw up one’s hands and assume the problem is so intractable that no matter what we do here it will have no effect globally. Then again, as you pointed out, what we did here through the 70s and 80s and beyond with respect to cleaning up sulfates and particulates did have an effect. I also suspect that the Chinese and Indian governments are beginning to understand that GHGs are a problem — one that will affect them. But unless there are reasonable alternatives to coal in particular, they are likely to be more willing to deal with the problem in other ways than getting aggressive about reducing their GHG emissions. However, if reasonable alternatives ARE available, why wouldn’t they take advantage of them?
It is, in other words, yet another reason to incentivize the development of clean alternative fuels and/or cheap, efficient methods of carbon sequestration. There could be huge amounts of money in it for whoever gets there first.
Spook: Any credibility he [Hansen] ever had, IMO, is pretty well shot. McIntyre strikes again.
I disagree. I applaud what McIntyre is doing. And I agree with him that the primary data contributing to climate research should be more open and accessible to more people. But I don’t think Hansen’s credibility is shot. For one thing, you can’t really blame him specifically for the problems they had when they switched software.
Likewise, I find it hard to believe that Mann, et al had nefarious intent when they overstated their “hockey stick” data. They just got it wrong. One could argue that they didn’t check it as thoroughly as they might have because the results they were getting coincided with what they thought. That’s a problem, but it’s understandable. And that’s why science generally insists on reproducibility. But that’s another problem in the case of climate science: the data are so complex, so expensive to generate and analyze, and the players so intermixed that truly independent reproduciblility is nearly impossible. But that doesn’t mean there’s some sort of conspiracy afoot. It does, however, argue for more transparency.
Rico,
You’ve GOT to learn how to turn bold off.
My comment of Hansen’s credibility being shot wasn’t predicated solely on his refusal to share data and methods re: the Y2K problem. He’s also received nearly a $million from the Heinz Foundation and a Goerge Soros-backed organization. My biggest problem with Hansen, though, is that he’s such a whiner. He constantly complains that the Bush Administration is trying to silence him, but if you do a little research, you discover that there is probably not a single individual on the alarmist side that has made more public appearances and public statements than James Hansen. When he first came on the GW scene in the late 80’s he had a fairly high degree of credibility. In the last few years, IMO, he’s just gone off the deep end.
Ricorun,
It looks like this topic will be moving off the front page of B4V before I can really respond to your comments, but it will give me something for next time — as I’m sure there will be one! That’s one thing I don’t like as well about the “new” format, there aren’t as many topics displayed on the front page of B4V as there were with B4B, and those topics move off the B4V front page and into obscurity much more quickly than they did under B4B.
Forgotten? I haven’t forgotten a potential solution to saving the world from burning up if the Algorians happen to be correct, or worse yet, if they are wrong once again and underestimate the affect of the sun on our future climate!
I don’t have the time right now to double check, but I think most of that smog and lower level pollution was due to various oxides of nitrogen and lower level ozone. Most of the cooling would be from particulate matter (soot, carbon, etc.) and sulfates, the latter producing acid rain with an adverse affect on aquatic systems and forests when excessive.
Perhaps we should have been a little more concerned about cooking the environment then rather than rushing headlong into a cleaning that would be as catastrophic as the Algorians claim! Perhaps we should have more gradually reduced the particulate emissions, as we phased out fissile fuels, and converted to cleaner alternate forms of energy. Why didn’t the environmentalist and their “climate models” catch that little problem before they set the stage to cook the world in their efforts for instantly cleaner air and drive to extinction all of those plants and animals they now claim will perish?!!!
Perhaps rather than tightening the emissions even more as the environmentalists want, we should relax them and aim for a more gradual and longer term phase out, as we phase in alternate forms of energy, and phase down the production of carbon dioxide. Has that all been figured into the Algorian climate models? And what is the plan when the natural global cooling does set the stage for the next Ice Age?
I haven’t changed my position. It remains: “to produce new, plentiful, cheap, renewable, and non-polluting fuels and energy — including nuclear, wind, solar, bio-fuels, hydrogen, etc. — and stop the Democrat’s plan to tax, restrict, tax, control, tax, and lower America’s standard of living!”
I haven’t read or heard anyone else relate the Clean Air Act and reduction of pollution with the increasing temperatures of Global Warming… which some have said caused (worsened) those California fires (stoked by brush which courts have blocked cutting and removal at the demand of more environmentalist), have you?
Should we thank the environmentalists for the cleaner air in which we will all cook and burn thanks in part to their efforts (facetiously speaking)?!!!
AAR
As usual, Spook and AAR and Rico and neocon have contributed fact and reason to the argument, while phnx has pointed out the same observation I have often made—that Man-Made Global Warming is a belief system far more than a scientific fact.
I am taking a little time out of what has just turned into an even busier day than I had anticipated, so I don’t have the time to do research. But I have some questions.
Rico, you asked for proof that we have had hotter climates in our past. I don’t know if climate changes are balanced out over the earth, so when one area gets colder another gets hotter and vice versa, but as I sit here at 9500 feet above sea level, looking out at the snow-capped peaks, I also know that at one time this same area was either under an ocean or sea or forested with what we would now call tropical plants. A couple of hundred miles west of me is an area of amazing discoveries of dinosaur fossils, remains of animals which flourished in a much hotter and more humid climate than now exists in that area.
Don’t fossils “prove” different temperatures? Indirectly, perhaps, but still by showing plant life that could only flourish in certain conditions don’t we show that those conditions existed?
Another complaint about the GW evangelicals—they steadfastly ignore the many, varied, and energetic efforts to find and implement alternative forms of energy.
Everyone has heard of ethanol, but no one here has seemed to care enough about the GW “crisis” to learn about what other activities are moving forward.
First off, are the same “environmentalists” who are so frantic about global warming ready to lift their objections to the mining of silica, thereby making solar collectors more cost-efficient and therefore more accessible?
Are you ready to take your psuedo-Lib “leaders” to task for trying to ban wind farms in areas THEY want to “protect”? Why do you tolerate and even revere NIMBYs like Kennedy who talk the talk but refust to walk the walk, refusing to allow a wind farm to be set up far offshore but in a favored yachting area? Why do you support those who blocked the erection of a wind farm because “envirnomentalists” claimed it was too close to a wilderness area.
Can’t put wind farms where people can see them, can’t put them out in the ocean, can’t put them in wilderness areas where, by definition, very few people ever go—just where WILL you hysterics allow the establishment of clean alternative energy sources like wind farms?
Why do you GW hysterics ignore the advances in other bio fuels? Done any reading lately on algae farms and their contributions to biodiesel and ethanol production? How about lobbying to allow the planting of genetically engineered hemp, which produces vast amounts of oil which can be used to make biodiesel as well as fabrics and rope?
Are you actually DOING anything, or just whining and throwing out accusations? We all know the answer to that question. You are not doing anything, will not do anything, because you are what you are due to your innate inability to DO anything or be FOR anyting.
Doers have to take responsibility for what they do. But the radical Left has taken their positions because they allow them to sit by and do nothing, yet feel morally and intellectually superior because they can attack everything DONE by anyone else.
Speed bumps is all they are. There will be no answers to any serious questions because posting an answer would mean taking a position, and if you are an ANTI you don’t take positions, you just sit back and wait till one comes by and run out to try to run a stick through its spokes, and thereby feel you have done something.
Spook: You’ve GOT to learn how to turn bold off.
Tell me about it. I guess it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Lol!
AAR: That’s one thing I don’t like as well about the “new” format, there aren’t as many topics displayed on the front page of B4V as there were with B4B, and those topics move off the B4V front page and into obscurity much more quickly than they did under B4B.
I agree. But as far as your other point is concerned…
Perhaps we should have more gradually reduced the particulate emissions, as we phased out fissile fuels, and converted to cleaner alternate forms of energy. Why didn’t the environmentalist and their “climate models” catch that little problem before they set the stage to cook the world in their efforts for instantly cleaner air and drive to extinction all of those plants and animals they now claim will perish?!!!
I would say it’s because no one had a good handle on the true magnitude and extent of the problem. But that’s not exactly a unique experience. Rather, it happens all the time. Aspirin was the miracle drug for inflamation, until it became obvious that in certain situations it could promote strokes and stuff. Antibiotics revolutionized the fight against infectious diseases, until it became apparent that bacteria could adapt. There are myriad similar examples, and not just in science. Civil rights legislation revolutionized the experience of black people in this country. At the time those laws were enacted they encountered a lot of resistance. But it’s hard to find anyone these days suggest that the effects were not positive. Now there’s an issue about affirmative action, which I think is legitimate because the ways the laws are enacted do tend to compartmentalize people. However, it’s nice to know that the situation has changed so much as to expose that limitation. One could argue that NCLB is also reaching the point where its own limitations are becoming exposed.
So what are you going to do — throw up your hands and say it’s all impossible because we can’t know everything at any given time? Or do you want to keep trying, keep tweaking how you react to things as you improve your information set? I’d prefer to do the latter.
Granted, some policies are crappy to begin with, even considering the conditions extant at the time. Others, however, become crappy only as the situation changes — often as a result of the improvements the policies themselves provoked. To me the law of unintended consequences is not some sort of static condition, but rather an on-going concern.
I haven’t read or heard anyone else relate the Clean Air Act and reduction of pollution with the increasing temperatures of Global Warming… have you?
Actually, I’ve mentioned it at least a couple of times here. And I’m sure I’ve mentioned it to Spook in private emails as well. But apart from me, of course it’s been mentioned. Check out this chart. Pay particular attention to the sulfate curve relative to the GHG curve. To convince yourself it’s not exactly a new concept, you might also want to read this. Also, Wikipedia has a rather good discussion about what was and what was not known at the time. Pay special attention to the Rasool and Schneider article that appeared in Science in July 1971.
Spook: He’s also received nearly a $million from the Heinz Foundation and a Goerge Soros-backed organization.
I defy you to prove that charge. Seriously, to the extent that you try — and to the extent that you keep an open mind in the process — I think you’ll end up feeling like you’ve been punked. I certainly did. Hansen himself calls it swiftboating. His response alone isn’t likely to convince you of that. And it shouldn’t. But go ahead and check it out.
You guys are awesome!
I’ve never read so many people talking so much crap that is uninformed, confused, head-in-the-sand, anti-science, anti-reality, and pro-bill Oil companies and the politicians they buy off.
OK
• The IPCC is an intergovernmental panel with scientists that are appointed by all of the governments of the United Nations to study the climate change. They are the scientists. When we have questions about science who can we listen to if not scientists?
• Almost all sceptisim can be traced back to being funded by OIL and COAL companies and others who stand to profit from people’s consumption of fossil fuels.
• We cannot just drill for more oil in the united states. If it were easy and affordable to find and there was lots of it then the major US oil companies would be all over it. If there’s a small amount in a protected envoriment like Alaska then I agree that it should stay protected and not be the site of nasty oil drilling.
• Our climate has been controlled by a natural balanced cycle. As far as we know. We’ve have warming and cooling. We’ve had high amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmospere before and this is known because we can examine (“we” as in those big bad scary evil scientists) ice cores from the arctic that tell us the climate makeup going back a coupole hundred thousand years ago. This by itself shows that yes we have cooling and warming and yes we have had high amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmposhere but we have never in that amount of time had the amount we have now. This has been no doubt the fault of humans.
• It is NOT true that science is telling us that this climate change will cause only warming. It can cause many different climate effects. Drastic changes in weather with just a few days. Here in Missouri we can get 70 degrees like it is today in mid-november and have single digits with 16 inches of snow next week. This is not what has been normal. It’s not that this stuff wasn’t possible before but it’s that it happens much more frequent, is harder to predict, and everything is more intense. Droughts, floods, bigger tornadoes, and bigger hurricanes.
• Bigger tornados and bigger hurricanes DOES NOT mean MORE. Bigger means more fierce, more deaths, more damage. No credible climate change scientist is saying that it means more storms. Just that they will be increasingly bigger.
• If people keep saying that scientists used to say at one point that we were heading for an ice age I’m going to scream. Let that dog lie, let it go, they had old technology, it’s not the same as what we have now. Get over it. And hell, lets just say they were wrong. Whatever… point is it’s not related to this and does not discredit the scientists who are working now with 2007 technology and way better computers.
• AND YES we should care about this and do something. What should we do? Just stop burning fossil fuels. Does that seem hard? Yes. But it’s the only thing to do. You guys for the most part are confusing the issue, each other, your family, your friends, your children and their children. Buying right into the industries plan to create confusion.
Almiranta: Rico, you asked for proof that we have had hotter climates in our past.
I wouldn’t put it quite so simply. I want to know the chronology too. To say “it was hotter in the past” doesn’t help much if you don’t say exactly when, and what is the source of your data. Without that it’s hard to speculate whether you’re likely to be wrong about the source, wrong about the data, or wrong about the time-frame. With caveat in mind, let us proceed…
I don’t know if climate changes are balanced out over the earth, so when one area gets colder another gets hotter and vice versa, but as I sit here at 9500 feet above sea level, looking out at the snow-capped peaks, I also know that at one time this same area was either under an ocean or sea or forested with what we would now call tropical plants. A couple of hundred miles west of me is an area of amazing discoveries of dinosaur fossils, remains of animals which flourished in a much hotter and more humid climate than now exists in that area.
Don’t fossils “prove” different temperatures? Indirectly, perhaps, but still by showing plant life that could only flourish in certain conditions don’t we show that those conditions existed?
In the broadest sense, yes. But then you have to ask yourself why. And the answer is rarely easy. There are seashell fossils at the peaks of the Himilayas. Does that mean the peaks of the Himilayas were once under water? Well yeah, in a sense. But that doesn’t mean the oceans were once so high that they submerged the peaks of the Himilayas. Rather, a more parsimonious explanation is to suggest that the peaks of the Himilayas were once much lower in altitude. The evidence is pretty clear that the Indian subcontinent is still actively crashing into the Asian land mass. What is now on top of the Himilayas was once sea shore property. And it wasn’t all that long ago, geologically speaking. Likewise, the Sierras here in California are relatively new. But the interaction between the North American and the Pacific plates are are more of a slip-strike encounter, where they are mostly sliding against each other, as opposed to an immovable object meets another immovable object kind of affair, as is largely the case for the Himilayas.
I don’t know where you are exactly Almiranta. Colorado? Anyway, there are likely to be a number of contributing factors over the last couple of hundred million years. First is the fact that there was, and still is, a rather sizeable magma plume below the area centered around Yellowstone park. Second is the fact that major portions of the western North American plate has been uplifted over the last 100 million years or so, causing the shallow sea that covered most of the plains states to drain. That had nothing to do with global temperatures per se, although the dynamics involved might. Third is the fact that global temperatures really were quite a bit warmer a hundred million years ago than they are now — or have been for at least a million years. The question is why? That’s really hard to say. But as the data improve it seems to me that it is becoming more and more obvious that the whole global system has stabilized for long periods of time with distributions of various atmospheric gas concentrations and concommitant global temperatures far different than they are today, punctuated by fairly rapid transitions between “equilibrium” states. That to me suggests a chaotic system. I guess it goes without saying it is, but I’m not much of an expert on chaotic systems. All I can say at this point is that if that’s the case, then it’s important to know what the phase space is, how stable it is, and what is likely to trigger a significant reorganization.
SteaM,
You’re awesome. You have boughten the AGW scam hook, line, and sinker.
How easy it is to control the masses when the masses are people like SteaM.
Ricorun,
I only had time to quickly scan the links you provided, but I didn’t see where they specifically tied the Clean Air Act and related reductions to increased Global Warming. Perhaps I skipped over it.
I saw the graphs showing the decline in sulfate and aerosol, but they did not specifically talk about the Clean Air Act, and the discussions about particulate matter seemed directed more at aerosols and not soot, carbon, and other particles — or a combined chart. As some scientists have said, a little soot and carbon may be a good thing! And the effects are reversible — they settle out if not continually renewed.
The “Climate Change Attribution” chart showed the carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) rising after the temperature rise, and not the reverse; although, I realize, that was only one small chart. Looking only at that chart, and considering that a temperature rise precedes a rise in carbon dioxide, we might expect carbon dioxide to level off for the next 30 years or so and then begin to rise again.
What are we going to do? Produce cheap, plentiful, renewable, non-polluting energy, and drill for more of our own oil which we will need in the interim — not raise taxes and impose the Liberal’s restrictions on our lifestyle! Perhaps we don’t need to be rushing quite so fast to remove every bit of pollution from the air right when we may need it to cool the planet! Perhaps we should slowly phase out, even increase some production, rather than shoot for the instant gratification environmentalists want! Most of the environmentalists are just as fanatical as PETA-philes — they care more for their own “pet” objective than for humans!
What are we going to do when the solar cycle changes, and we find out we are in a period of global cooling instead — headed for the next Ice Age — right as we are trying to cool the Earth ourselves?!!!
AAR
Neocon, the united states is out of oil. What should we do about it?
Oh, right, go over to the middle east and take over their oil fields. Muslims won’t mind at all, will they?
From the NYT:
Scientists said today that they created what appear to be
embryonic stem cells without having to make or destroy an embryo.
This is great news! You know why? Because it’s SCIENCE working for the good of man. And it may overcome some of the religous fears of this type of research. I’m all for that if it means improvements in the science of medicine.
Now, will all of you climate change science skeptics feel the same way as these scientists?
Schoolgirl Spanking Schoolgirls Schoolgirl Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
Jack
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll write a post on this on my blog soon.
Eric
Cool post. 100% great content everytime. Thanks for sharing.
Accounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
Doloris
This is similar to comment spam but avoids some of the safeguards designed to stop the latter practice. This enables authors to keep
Global Warming? I remember when it was the global cooling scare, then global warming and now it is climate change. I have also spent thirty years watching American industry and jobs leave this Nation. I have watched our freedom and rights disappearing and I have seen the media destroy an industry with flat out lies. The propaganda closed 5 plants in one state alone.
I find it interesting that both the democrats and republicans support this long running hoax.
In 1801 William Herschel correlated climate change with sunspot activity. A century later E.W. Maunder pointed out a period of very low sunspot activity between 1620 and 1720 known as the Maunder minimum or the little ice age.
Hypothesis #1: Politicians lie.
Hypothesis #2: Scientists are human.
Hypothesis #3: Some scientists will do what is needed to get funding or for other reasons. (Soviet scientist and acquired characteristics are inherited.)
Hypothesis #4 A scientist in 1801 had no reason to lie about climate change.
The evidence supports Herschel told the truth.
If you want the really long winded analysis try Jay Draiman said… at
http://corporatepresenter.blogspot.com/2007/12/climate-change-lies.html
If you want to know WHY (who benefits?)try the very well documented “KOOK???” site
The information in this site dovetails with the facts I actually witnessed independently. It explains all those facts that have been bothering me for years.
http://www.nwowatcher.com/ebooks/Global%20Tyranny%20Step%20By%20Step%20-%20By%20William%20F%20Jasper.pdf