U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer
Last year’s global average temperature was the 10th warmest since 1850. In fact, eight of the past 10 years, and 13 of the last 14, are among the warmest on record.
So naturally, Blaine Luetkemeyer, a Republican member of Congress from Missouri’s 9th district, has concluded: “We are undergoing a period of worldwide cooling.”
Mr. Luetkemeyer, of St. Elizabeth in Miller County, was a farmer, insurance man, banker, state representative and state tourism director before being elected to Congress last November. His college degree is in political science, not climate science.
Nevertheless, he has now proclaimed the data behind concern over global warming to be “international junk science.”
Last week, he introduced a bill that would prohibit U.S. financial contributions to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s most authoritative scientific body. The IPCC won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for compiling and publishing mountains of scientific data on global climate change.
But Mr. Luetkemeyer — who freely admits he hasn’t read any of it — thinks its junk science.
The good news is that his bill will go nowhere; as a freshman member of the minority party, Mr. Leutkemeyer has very little influence. The bad news is his bill is an embarrassment — to himself, his constituents and the rest of Missouri.
Global Average Temperature Record.
The graph above charts global average temperatures over time. It’s true that average temperature during each of the past three years was slightly lower than in 2005. That’s what scientists call annual temperature fluctuation.
But to anyone who can actually read a graph — a group that apparently doesn’t include Mr. Luetkemeyer — the larger trend is unmistakable.
The 1990s were the warmest decade since at least 1850. Yet 2008 — the year Mr. Luetkemeyer says proves “we are undergoing a period of worldwide cooling” — was warmer than all but two years of the 1990s.
The Arctic ice pack is shrinking by about 12 percent per decade. Greenland is losing at least 36 cubic miles of ice cover each year. Sea levels are rising. The reason: Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are at their highest levels in at least 650,000 years.
Just since 1950, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by about 35 percent.
Last week, Mr. Leutkemeyer issued a press release to trumpet his ignorance. He claimed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has “debunked global warming theory.” In fact, the EPA global warming web site links to the very U.N. agency for which Mr. Luetkemeyer would cut funding. (You can read the most recent U.S. government report on climate change here.)
He claims that “more than 700 international scientists” have signed a report disputing global climate change. Some of the 700 are legitimate scientific contrarians. But one of them is Chris Allen, a weatherman at a Kentucky TV station. He has no college degree; the only “scientific articles” he’s ever written are on the station’s weather blog. Another is Edward Blick, a Biblical creationist from Oklahoma who believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old and “global warming is hatred against humanity.”
Mr. Leutkemeyer told Post-Dispatch reporter Bill Lambrecht that “the IPCC has 50-some scientists.” Actually, the latest IPCC report was the product of “more than 500 lead authors and 2,000 expert reviewers” and summarizes the findings of thousands more researchers.
That fact can be found in the preface of the document Mr. Luetkemeyer dismisses as junk science. This proves that on little, easy-to-check facts, just as on big, complicated issues of climate science, Mr. Luetkemeyer is just Blaine wrong.
Hijort said “So I ask you, editors of STLToday, why bother with comments?”
You are so right. The PD should continue to listen only to the 2% of people with liberal views that are far out of the mainstream, like you.
They should make sure that no other opinions are even expressed, for fear of corrupting our society with heresy.
Communists need useful idiots to promote their nonsense and squash other opinions – you may be a candidate for the job.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe we should be more global in our view as a Russian scientist saw it. “Living matter gives the biosphere an extraordinary character, unique in the universe… Cosmic energy determines the pressure of life that can be regarded as the transmission of solar energy to the Earth’s surface… Activated by radiation, the matter of the biosphere collects and redistributes solar energy, and converts it ultimately into free energy capable of doing work on Earth…
A new character is imparted to the planet by this powerful cosmic force. The radiations that pour upon the Earth cause the biosphere to take on properties unknown to lifeless planetary surfaces, and thus transform the face of the Earth… In its life, its death, and its decomposition an organism circulates its atoms through the biosphere over and over again.
Vladimir Vernadsky, Biosfera, 1926
It is essentially Vernadsky’s concept of the biosphere… that we accept today.
Evelyn Hutchinson, The Biosphere, 1970
THERE IS NO EASY ANSWER! AS FAR AS THE POLAR BEAR….I AM BETTING ON OUR SURVIVAL FIRST. WHAT CAN A HOT, FURY , WHITE BODY DO IN THE FACE OF MODERN MIGRATING FARMERS WITH MODERN GUNS (NO BOWS AND ARROWS OR SPEARS THIS TIME AROUND!} LIKE NATIVE AMERICANS THEY WILL BE PUT IN A REFRIGERATED RESERVATION AND BE THROWN A FISH NOW AND THEN TO KEEP THEM HAPPY WHILE OUR OFFSPRING LOOK ON. THAT IS ONLY IF WE CAN GET THEM OUT OF THE HOUSE WITH MISSOURI TEMPERATURES PROJECTED TO BE AROUND 7 F HIGHER BY 2100.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i had something written up but this thing messed up so this is all i’m going to say… THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE! IT’S PROVEN SCIENCE ABOUT INFERRED LIGHT AND GREEN HOUSE GASSES. NO IT ISN’T ONLY GOING TO GET WARMER EVEN AL GORE SAID THAT! if the politicians behind this want to argue economics about it that’s fine but for the love of god look at the freaking facts. every decade has been getting hotter and that’s all global warming is is the AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF EACH DECADE RISING. not now.. yes it’s been an oddly cool summer for st. louis but our storms have been stronger, sea levels are rising, ice in the arctic is melting at an alarming rate and this is all PROVEN FACT!!!! you can go to anyone who lives on the coast and they will tell you that the sea levels are rising… you can sea it so open your damn eyes!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Global warming is the biggest hoax in the world.Wake up and realize the truth before it’s too late.Before the Obama’s of the world screw us again.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I find it amazing that the far-left wackos have the brain cells to type sentences. About the only thing they know how to do is drink the Kool-Aid and support the fools. Instead of reading and understanding issues, they sit and read their lovely newspaper while forgetting that they soiled their diapers hours ago.
Oh, they will tell you that science is on their side. What they won’t tell you is that they have corrupted the leagues of scientists long ago.
The Obama-Gore environmental movement is pure hypocrisy. This do as I say, not as I do crap has to stop. If we are in danger of destroying the planet, the way to go about reducing our impact would be to do so through grass roots behaviour change. The left knows this, and if it truly were their goal, that would be the route they would have taken. They have a different agenda. Government control is their objective. Government control of everything from our banking system to our energy companies.
The country as we know it is going down the sewer with all those stinky diapers from the lefty droolers. It is time for us to stand up and take our country back.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One must wonder why online newspapers continue to have open comments sections. It is clear from reading any and all newspapers that rabid, ignorant far-right morons have decided that this is the best way they can spew their venom and ignorance on any subject and guarantee an audience and the appearance of widespread “support” for their opinions.
They’re not called “dittoheads” for nothing.
They live in their mothers basements, maintaining hundreds of email accounts, getting their talking points from Rush, Red State and other websites, some of which are devoted to coordinating these online attacks on comment forums. They keep a standard repertoire of attacks handy, complete with emotional appeals and cries of “Conspiracy!” “Tyranny!” “Communists” and “Terrorists!”. They are the internet equivalent of shock troops, driven by paranoid schizophrenia.
Their comments are pure distortion, lies and hysteria. They make up facts or cite cardboard cut-out “experts” who make up facts. They make declarations about What Is, and never acknowledge any flaw in their arguments. Most of their attacks are rage-filled denunciations and warnings, none have any merit. Yet neither merit nor logic is required for the religious zealot, the racist or the Republican.
Newspaper editors won’t print their drivel. If they blog they only collect the same group of 100 or so like-minded readers. (Plus, after three blogs, they’ve run out of material.) If they join any real forum of rational discussion and opinion they soon wear out their welcome by raving, spouting misinformation and outright lies, engaging in personal attacks and revealing their true colors with racist rants and death threats against anyone who opposes their theocratic insanity.
Most liberals don’t bother engaging them, it’s a waste of time. “Never argue with a crazy person,” is even more true on the internet than in real-life. Intelligent people have better things to do than trying to reason with gibbering fools. So I ask you, editors of STLToday, why bother with comments?
If you let just any old dog into your house, don’t be surprised if you end up with fleas.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I had Blick for drilling engineering back in the 80s. Odd for a biblicist to be teaching about rocks millions of years old when he thinks that those same rocks from different geological eras are only 10,000 years old. Makes me wonder about my degree, and makes me glad he wasn’t on my MS committee. What does he know about this stuff?????
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Global warming since 1880 is a well documented fact. Anthropogenic Global WArming (AGW) is possible, but not a fact. The only factual way to know for sure would be to conduct an experiment with 2 identical Earths of the same age and solar environment. Then have humans occupy one planet and leave the other planet uninhabited as the control. If the uninhabited planet is cooler than the inhabited planet, then we could say as a fact that AGW was the cause.
The 25-30 year cooling /warming cycle cited by Dr Gray (University of Colorado) is supported by NOAA experts and even published as fact on NOAA web sites. We appear to be tilting into a period of global cooling. (It is a fact that the cooling periods are smaller in magnitude than the warming periods- a case for AGW.– note the downwards trend from 1945 to 1975)
It will be interesting to see if the trillions of dollars we’ll spend to counter AGW will get the credit if the planet is cooler in 2020, or if it would’ve cooled down anyway. We’ll never know for sure. One point worth noting however, the earth did cool down from 1945 to 1975 and we didn’t do anything to counter AGW activities. In fact, vehicles had the highest level of GHG emissions, coal fired power plants were dirtier than ever, (acid rain was a major problem in the east) and by 1975 people were talking about the perils of global cooling and what to do about it.
Another fact worth noting is that Antarctica is cooling and the sea ice has grown slightly larger since 1980, while the Artic sea ice has been reduced significantly. Why only on one pole? I haven’t heard a good explanation of why they are different. Finally, on CO2, as it increases we’ll have more vegetation, larger agricultural areas, be able to feed more people, and use less energy to heat our homes in winter. We’ll have 100 years to relocate people from coastal flood areas which may be an economic engine world wide. Global cooling on the other hand would reduce agricutural area and increase energy usage in winter.
History has shown that the global climate is always changing and always will independent of AGW effects. Being from New Hampshire, I’d rather have global warming than cooling any day!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Protagorus,
Look at the big picture as regards public policy. The reference to Darfur (and others) in my earlier post points to the tactic used by global warming advocates (or whatever agenda an activist group promotes)to bolster their position by claiming affiliation to some prestigious group or organization. The United Nations is a Third-World-dominated bureaucracy dedicated to wealth redistribution, and UN officials have been among the most vocal advocates of restrictions on carbon emissions by industrialized countries. Like the US government, the UN cannot produce wealth on its own, nor solve any global problems despite its high-minded rhetoric. It does use its PR-created image to extort resources from developed countries to fund its agenda and bloated administrative heierarchy. If the UN’s performance is really irrelevant to the global-warming debate, why did the piece highlight the conclusions reached by the IFPP (a committee of the United Nations)?
.
I did like your use of the term, “non-sequiter”, though. I hadn’t heard it used since an old episode of “Star Trek”.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey editorial board! Get your head out of your bag of donuts and respond. You owe it to your readers to justify the actions of Mr. Obama and Mr. Gore.
(Oh wait, I forgot you were on the hunt for Obama’s birth certificate. Ensuring that the US Constitution is followed is a very noble and important task. We’ll be ok here.)
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
billhaas,
–Had this cut and pasted, getting ready to torpedo the math, while reading the comments. Lo and behold 2 comments from the end you, of all people, steal my thunder.
“Last year’s global average temperature was the 10th warmest since 1850. In fact, eight of the past 10 years, and 13 of the last 14, are among the warmest on record”
–Damn son, you get the credit though. It was the first thing I noticed when reading the piece, the “liberal” math. Was just getting set to call “shenanigans”.
–On the bigger issue, the piece doesn’t really differentiate between “global warming”, and “man-made global-warming”. There is a growing number of those who believe in global-warming and don’t believe in man-made global-warming.
–An extremely supercilious and predictable scare piece by the
P.D.[Partisanship Distilled].
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So why is the area of the curve under the “Average” line about 3 times larger than the area above it?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Am I the only one here who can read, add or think? 8 out of 10 years and 13 out of 14 makes no sense. Just saying. Otherwise liked the editorial but concerns me that board cant add, read or think, nor editor, at least in this one respect. You’d think they’d be writing about the schoolboards in stlouis, where they cant read, add nor think either. Just saying. If I’m wrong, someone please point it out. Will not be thrilled, but definitely enlightened; always a good day when that happens.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
THe first graph shows a couple of years of cooling in the 80’s….the same time period we were going through smog wars in LA and the “threat” of air pollution….if that bad smog caused a cooling period, what does that say about your reliable science editorial board……attacking a persons opinion is one thing, but attacking his intelligence level his education level is pathetic and sad….it gives us journalists a bad name. People like you all is why we are losing readers, advertisers and papers are closing. Do the rest of us a favor editor….quit and start a blog so the rest of us can start fixing the mess you all have created.
kin
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Saw this on another site:
“If only there were some… natural mechanism by which to explain variations in global temperature. It would have to be massive, though. On the scale of our own Sun.”
Oh well. At least the Post didn’t stoop to the Goracle’s level and liken Luetkemeyer to the Nazis. He’ll enjoy the last laugh.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Deleted (tedious personal attack).
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So, if we get our oxygen from trees and plants…and they get their life from CO2, isn’t CO2 a good thing?
I wonder how many global warming believers are going to wear jackets Friday night with record lows predicted?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Let’s play pretend and go with “Global Warming is real”. And I won’t go into how the EB took any and all shots at that idiot Pres. Bush for pulling the US out of the Kyoto Treaty. Because I don’t remember this esteem Ed Borad pointing out that congress enters out Country into a Treaty and “95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[65][66] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory”. All that aside. If Chian and India by far much larger industrial countries and at best questionable controls over pollution. Who in thier right mind thinks crippling our economy with cap and trade will work?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Meme, “can I think for myself?”….yes, I can, but your rant has all of the tell-tale signs of one who spends way too much time listening to-and heeding the advice of-a.m. radio “infotainers”. Rather than return the insult, I’ll just ask you again:
Do you have a vested interest in countering the Global Warming argument?
Regardless of whether or not the earths’ temperature is changing due to mans’ effect on it, it is too large a question for any one person or even group of people to get their arms around right now and the proof either way won’t be known, I’m afraid, until it is upon us.
Over the weekend, on another thread here regarding this topic, I posed the question “whatever happened to pollution?”. Isn’t the fact that the fish in our oceans are becoming too poisonous to eat and our National Parks are being destroyed ( Google “nitrogen levels in Rocky Mountain NP”, for example ) reason enough to make changes?
You state, “a policy of precaution is not science, it’s superstition”. Some might call it common sense. Me, I’m just planning on seeing Glacier National Park while it still has some glaciers to see.
By the way, I have little direct vested interest, unless you count my Ameren stock.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From Rice University today:
“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”
http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=12794&SnID=994429986
If we cant explain it, it must be true!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Skippy. Just say it. I don’t know anything and the scientists know everything. If that works for you go ahead and keep scaring our children with this fear for another 23 years. “Do as the scientist say” is cowardly. Can you think for yourself?
Here are the denier’s observed facts:
-A policy of precaution is not science, its superstition.
-Just shy of a quarter of a century of failed IPCC predictions certainly disproves the theory.
-La Nina is stronger than all of Global Warming’s magical powers.
-Melting ice does not prove CO2 is at fault?
-Our cooling clear blue sky disproves the theory.
-10 years of NOAA cooling disproves the theory.
-Resulting cooling disproves predicted warming.
THE THEORY WAS WRONG. MOVE ON.
Be responsible environmentalists and stop chasing a false crisis from CO2. Work on real pollution and stop scaring our children with this. Let’s all get ahead of the curve preserve our planet, not save it from a mistake with more needless fear.
Peace!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Meme Mine”, since every proponent of global warming is in it just to make a buck, could you please prove to us know that you have no vested in countering their argument?
I want to believe you but the information put forth by thousands of scientists from around the world is weighing a bit more heavily than some guy who wants to blame the newspaper.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I unfortunately profess to reading little of climate change. I have however, opinions on sound discourse of which these blogs rarely contain. The editor makes claims concerning artic ice cap melting, sea level rising, Greenland, as well as the graph above. Rather than just making poor attempts at wit (rock star) or continually arguing via non sequiturs (whether the UN has fixed Darfur isn’t relative to climate change) please spend your energy debating the editors claims. Meme, you tried, but please explain further why a clearing blue sky disproves the theory (und so weiter).
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Anyone with an agenda can find a study to back it up. Green is just another way to make money.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Did you get your free gift from Al Gore for this?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Merc Man:
The science is clear and open, easily accessible and certainly quite understandable by the average person who is willing to seek the truth for themselves.
Throwing in “experts” and “climatologists” stops all debate.
This theory has holes a five year old can poke holes through and the criminal neglect that corporate media is guilty of will be dealt with in the courts.
The courts you say? Yes, this new WMD scam will not go unpunished as the neocons got away with. Editors, scientists, climatologists and politicians will be charged with inciting mass fear.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Omigosh, TWO of 700 scientists are not what they claim to be! I’ll bet that none of the UN “experts” cited could possibly have less than impeccable credentials, or that those scientific “summaries” the IPCC produces could possibly have been carefully edited to produce the desired result.
And we all know how effective the UN is at addressing world problems. Without the world body, the crises in Darfur (Sudan), Lebanon, Palestine, Myanmar, Iran, Somalia, etc, etc, would never have been solved. Oh wait, they HAVEN”T been solved!
Before the Post decides to use Blaine Luetkemeyer as its whipping boy, it had better review Al Gore’s foaming-at-the-mouth advocacy of massive economic and politicl upheaval in pursuit of a dubious effort on “climate change”. The EPA administrator recently testified that with India and China rejecting limits on their carbon output, any measures the US undertakes (at enormous cost), would be totally ineffective.
The Post should also publish its editorial board’s scientific credentials for its readers to review. I’m guessing there aren’t a lot of climatologists moonlighting at the paper. As for the graphs the “scientists” at the Editorial Board published, they remind me of the old saw that “there are lies, damned lies, and then there’s statistics”.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you JoeCool. Now we know it’s not what we need to know to make an wise decision, it’s just who is saying it?
The science is clear and open, easily accessible and certainly quite understandable by the average person who is willing to seek the truth for themselves.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Should have been degree in climate science. None of the editorial hacks have a degree in that,either.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The editorial hacks whine that Luetkemeyer has a degree in poly sci not climate change. Just let us know how many of you hacks have degrees in climate change. What hypocrites you are.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This editor chooses to lie to you because he or she is one of the thoughtless benefactors of this modern day witch burning called glowbull warm mongering. In this case, a lazy so-called journalist (a dieing species in new communication thank god) is irresponsibly riding the last waves of this cultural fear mongering trend of fearing the unknown and selling it’s paper to the lowest of the impressionable. Don’t let yourself be included in this group and tell this paper you won’t stand for it.
This editor is part of THIS world:
Hysterical corporate media, pandering politicians, PR firms and paid consultants posing in lab coats calling themselves scientists.
Yes, the biggest liars are the biggest and most respected people we trust, the newspaper and the United Nations. It’s organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences that are backing off of this aging 23 year old theory and I predict this editor will sooner or later start yelling “FIRE” in the theatre over some other made up and temporary cultural myth of fear.
History will not be kind editor and we will not forget you for this.
By the way, melting and warming do not constitute a crisis nor proof of whom or what causes weather all of a sudden. Nature is still in charge and we are living longer than at any time in history and environmentalism has accomplished so much more since the smoggy 70’s that you editor could have chosen to tell us about.
23 years of promising us a doomsday is unsustainable and I beg all of you to remind this editor every chance we get.
The science is clear and open, easily accessible and certainly quite understandable by the average person who is willing to seek the truth for themselves. This editor has the same access, to the same info as you and I. Don’t let this editor treat you as a brainless puppet. The IPCC reports over the last 19 years have all failed to predict the outcome of climate. The climate crisis they predicted never arrived and as one who has read all of their reports and gathered as much info as possible, I have become a denier of the theory. Pollution is real, global warming is not and don’t bother calling me irresponsible because what is irresponsible is pursuing this dead theory and leading environmentalism down the wrong road.
It’s this editor that is being irresponsible, not the guy in the SUV, not the unemployed factory worker or even the politician promising to lower the temperature of the planet with your taxes. It all starts here, at newspapers. I’d frame this editorial promising doomsday since the tide is turning fast on this temporary cultural trend called death by catalytic converter gas and plant food. At least editor, could you please stop scaring our kids with this needless hysteria and fear from a nonexistent crisis?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So how was that global air temperature measured in 1850? How about 1950? Are these so called facts and charts that he put out there estimates or true, consistent measurements over time?
If we are in such a crisis, why is it that our appointed rock star flying all over the place with hundreds of staffers? If we are in such a crisis, why is it that Mr. Gore still lives in his huge, fossil fuel gulping mansion? Why is it that most of you so called concerned citizens on the editorial board do not drive Priuses? For your so-called leaders, why do they waste so much energy in Washington on doing absolutely nothing? Why do they produce 1000 page bills, print them out, for nobody to read?
Tell me, oh holy editorial board, what you are actually doing to help solve the problem that you assert is a crisis?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The high Saturday is supposed to be 71′ – in July in St. Louis. Okay, whatever! (Check out the 10-day forecast folks and enjoy the global warming)
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
January 1997 – 2009 Trend = -0.86 degF / Decade
January 1998 – 2009 Trend = -2.33 degF / Decade
January 1999 – 2009 Trend = -1.86 degF / Decade
January 2000 – 2009 Trend = -1.75 degF / Decade
January 2001 – 2009 Trend = -1.53 degF / Decade
January 2002 – 2009 Trend = -3.60 degF / Decade
January 2003 – 2009 Trend = -2.64 degF / Decade
January 2004 – 2009 Trend = -3.84 degF / Decade
January 2005 – 2009 Trend = -13.69 degF / Decade
January 2006 – 2009 Trend = -26.33 degF / Decade
January 2007 – 2009 Trend = -2.20 degF / Decade
So why does this editorial writer choose to lie to you? It has been warming over all for 10, 000 years since the ice age yet this leftist editor chooses to expose the global warming scam as the leftist answer to the neocon’s WMD scam.
What was promised by the IPCC for 23 years was and is:
“More tropical diseases, sea level rise, more storms and severe weather events, and species extinctions”
That is not “just” cooling. It’s a climate crisis that is being predicted.
Yes politicians, consultants, academics and PR firms are all lying. The thread of truth that make it legal for NASA, IPCC and the UN to lie is that yes, the CO2 global warming theory is a science and yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The truth is all research is done on effects not causes and yes this cooling was not predicted 23 years ago when this failed theory began.
Here are the denier’s observed facts:
-A policy of precaution is not science, its superstition.
-Just shy of a quarter of a century of failed IPCC predictions certainly disproves the theory.
-La Nina is stronger than all of Global Warming’s magical powers.
-Melting ice does not prove CO2 is at fault?
-Our cooling clear blue sky disproves the theory.
-10 years of NOAA cooling disproves the theory.
-Resulting cooling disproves predicted warming.
THE THEORY WAS WRONG. MOVE ON.
Be responsible environmentalists and stop chasing a false crisis from CO2. Work on real pollution and stop scaring our children with this. Let’s all get ahead of the curve preserve our planet, not save it from a mistake with more needless fear.
Peace!
This summer the IPCC, NASA, UN, and the NOAA will all jump ship by stating such crap as this:
“Recent weather and climate has produced challenges for climatologists and climate scientists all over the world and therefore we are proposing a bold new initiative to expanding our research to better our goals of public policy when it comes to climate and our environment. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.”
Get used to that sort of PR for a long time as politicians jump ship and start pointing fingers. There WILL be Senate hearings.
You warmie cry babies will be hiding in embarrassment.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Looks as though Sgt. Sarcasm is back with a vengeance.
Lots of linky-linky with the usual repetitious lack of thinky-thinky.
Big disappointment though — nothing on the polar bears.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gosh, imagine that, another attack on a Republican. Go figure!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0