Global -
warming alarmists see red at the mere mention of «Greenland.»
Not exact matches
Peter, being an
alarmist is a responsible role for any who
see, experience, suffer from, research or educate themselves about the direct impacts of a
warming world.
In other words, the more we learn the more we
see that everything is unusual compared to what the global
warming alarmists predict.
Then there are the previous Cook episodes that expose the level of global
warming alarmist «science» B.S. -
see here, here, here and here.
We
see all of the other completely natural explanations for climate change that global
warming alarmists ignore.
For example, understanding that global
warming is not a proven science and that there is no circumstantial evidence for global
warming alarmism — which is why we
see goats like political charlatans like Al Gore showing debunked graphs like the «hockey stick» to scare the folks — and, not understanding that climate change the usual thing not the unusual thing and that the climate change we observed can be explained by natural causes is the only thing that really separates we the people from superstitious and ignorant government - funded schoolteachers on the issue of global
warming... that and the fact that global
warming alarmists do not believe in the scientific method nor most of the principles upon which the country was founded.
According to the Global
Warming alarmists in 2008, we should have
seen no snow at all in the U.S. this year — in 2015.
«I've
seen Al Gore's film twice, but I've also read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, which makes a compelling case on the other side,» says Hug, referring to the controversial 2004 novel in which Crichton — using scientific arguments that were hotly challenged by critics — ridiculed the global -
warming consensus as the work of conspiratorial
alarmists.
I remember
seeing a few that were kowtowing to the climate
alarmists by talking about how company actions were helping to fight global
warming.
As can be
seen, the satellite empirical evidence after 30 + years does not readily support the climate -
alarmist AGW theory, nor the doomsday predictions of global
warming hell.
I know NOAA says the decade
saw warming of.2 °C, but it's fairly obvious that this number was a result of some major «adjustments» to the models, given that, as noted in the blog above, everyone, including major climate
alarmists like Phil Jones and Tim Flannery, had accepted that the planet did not
warm, on average, for the decade.
While global
warming alarmists continue to fantasize crude oil use getting drastically reduced already starting next year, OPEC
sees it totally differently.
I call it the «T3» tax, and I think the proposal should make everyone happy, except the most extreme
alarmists and the Trojan horse - types who
see the global
warming issue as a vehicle for imposing a set of anti-growth policies that they would want even if global
warming fizzles as a pretext.
It is noteworthy that there do seem to have been more severe precipitation events since the global temperature trend started to turn downwards recently but I still
see suggestions from committed
alarmists that that is a consequence of
warming rather than cooling.
Alarmists want to fight the war over whether the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 is true and whether the world has
seen warming over the last century, both propositions that skeptics like myself accept.
So I think we've
seen a tiny bit of
warming in the last 20 years but if you believe the
alarmists we should have
seen a lot.
No
warming here, nothing to
see, please go home, nothing «unprecedented» going on like the «
alarmist warmers» would have you believe, just more global
warming fraud.
Seldom mentioned is how much it has
warmed, which allows
alarmists to more easily arouse fear (e.g.,
see Joe Romm's latest; difficult to read graphs but no... Continue reading How much did the world
warm in November?