I'm in southeast England (just outside London) and it's snowing heavily outside with bad wintry weather all over the country. It's the first time I can remember seeing snow in the last week of March in over a decade. We should be well into the spring season now with flowers blooming and birds chirping!
We were in a warming phase following increased sunspot activity, but
the world now isn't getting any warmer, we are entering a cooling phase. "Man-made Global Warming" proponents know this and that is why we have had the media-driven semantic-language switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Climate change is an old term redefined to give it a new meaning linked to human activity. This is classic bait and switch, a favourite tactic of propagandists.
...and Confounding Global Warming Alarmists
"Despite all my years, this is the first time I've ever seen snow in Buenos Aires," 82-year-old Juana Benitez was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.
12 Jan 06: Fifty of New Zealand's glaciers are growing
8 Nov 06: Antarctic Ice Sheet Growing – Sea Levels Falling
25 Jun 07: Mount St. Helens’ Crater Glacier Advancing Three Feet Per Day
17 Jul 07: Alaskan glaciers advance one-third of a mile in less than a year
16 Jan 08: Ice returns as Greenland temperatures plummet
4 Feb 08: It appears Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all
19 Feb 08: Most snow cover since 1966
...and so on
Contrary to the widely held claim propagated by global-warming/climate-change proponents, a majority of scientists do not agree that global-warming/climate-change is predominantly caused by human activity.
Examination of all peer-reviewed papers on climate change published from 2004 to February 2007 shows that only 7% of the papers gave an explicit endorsement of the alleged consensus view that human activity is the major cause global warming. 6% of the papers reject the consensus outright and 48% papers are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.
A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.
Study conducted by climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia
Remember the UN IPCC report claiming a link between human activity and global warming and endorsed by thousands of scientists as reported by the "media".
Well, a rigourous analysis shows just 5 reviewers, none with impeccable credibility, explicitly endorsed the critical Chapter 9 or WG1 of UNIPCC's 4th Assessment Report which claims that humans have a significant influence on climate.
There is no "consensus". Not even close!
Finally, the false link between human activity and Global-warming/Climate-change is being used as a pretext for increased bureacratic and political control, persecution of dissenting scientists, increased national taxation, a new form of global taxation, population control, brainwashing kids in schools, shutting down development of the third-world, and dictating what light-bulbs you can use!
Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday. This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.
The scientific inaccuracies and errors in Gore's film as accepted by the judge based on existing scientific evidence:
PDF
Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.
Last week, the New York Times published an extraordinary editorial complaining that "Right now, everyone is using the atmosphere like a municipal dump, depositing carbon dioxide free." The Times editors suggested that the government "start charging for the privilege" by imposing a "carbon tax."
We all knew it would eventually come to this: the New York Times thinks the government should tax us for breathing.
A powerful House Democrat said on Friday that he planned to propose a steep new “carbon tax” that would raise the cost of burning oil, gas and coal, in a move that could shake up the political debate on global warming.
America should impose a $1-pergallon increase in the gasoline tax as penance for causing pollution, John Deutch, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, told the Trilateral Commission’s secret meeting here.
Every individual in Britain could be issued with a "personal carbon allowance" - a form of energy rationing - within a decade, under proposals being considered seriously by the Government.
Ministers say that increasingly clear evidence that climate change is happening more quickly than expected has made it necessary to "think the unthinkable".
Homeowners who refuse to make their properties energy efficient will face financial penalties under drastic government plans to transform Britain into the world's first 'green' economy.
He charged that groups other than scientists have now seized on the topic and ambitious environmentalists are fueling a global warming hysteria that has no solid ground in fact and allows manipulation of people.
COUPLES who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says.
The EU plans, within two years, to ban the sale of those traditional incandescent lightbulbs we all take for granted in our homes. Gordon Brown followed suit yesterday, saying he wanted them phased out in Britain by 2011. After all, these 'compact fluorescent bulbs' (or CFLs), to which they want us all to switch, use supposedly only a fifth of the energy needed by the familiar tungsten-filament bulbs now to be made illegal.
BUT: Unlike standard bulbs, [CLFs] they use toxic materials, including mercury vapour, which the EU itself last year banned from landfill sites - which means that recycling the bulbs will itself create an enormously expensive problem.
Perhaps most significantly of all, however, to run CFLs economically they must be kept on more or less continuously. The more they are turned on and off, the shorter becomes their life, creating a fundamental paradox. ... If people continue switching their lights on and off when needed, ..., they will find that their 'green' bulbs have a much shorter life than promised, thus triggering a consumer backlash from those who think they have been fooled.
But if they keep their lights on all the time to maximise their life, CFLs can end up using almost as much electricity from power stations (creating CO2 emissions) as incandescent bulbs - thus cancelling out their one supposed advantage.
So CO2 emissions remain the same and we get increased mercury pollution!
