The idea that man is the changer of climates serves Vice-Perpetrator Algore’s need for money, power, energy-gobbling mega-mansions, private jets and massage therapists.
The sheeple following this nonsense must ignore dozens of factual inaccuracies to pretend that eeeevil mankind is melting polar caps.
The hockey stick graph was faked. FAKED.
The entire Medieval Warming period (you know, when King Aurtur invented SUVs) was left out.
Is the earth warming or cooling?
The science is not clear and Marxist consensus is NOT science!
Is man causing it?
No. Not even a little.
Look at the beauty of this nonsense about Gore-Bull warming!
Long range prediction (easily forgotten or dismissed) with fantasy consequences.
This is like those giant ants that were created by atomic bomb tests http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047573/
At least in the ’50s the science was new enough to account for the ignorance displayed.
Time & Newsweek both followed the ‘scientific’ ignorance trend in ’74 & ’75
Hey it sold magazines…
Now we have the Masher-of-massage-girls Algore racking up hundreds of millions of dollars with his fairy tales about man-made climate change.
While the climate may change (primarily due to that big yellow thing seen on days without clouds), Gore-Bull Warming is still a hoax.
Whatever that excuse for a blog quotes and quote-mines from a magazine in the lay press notwithstanding, there was no *scientific* belief in the mid-1970s that the earth was poised on the brink of an Ice Age. In fact, concerns of human-caused climate change (which may include localized cooling in the midst of generalized warming) were already prominent in scientific literature.
The lesson: Don’t get your scientific “facts” from Fuddblogs, 36-year-old issues of non-science mags, and what you heard from someone else that Al Gore supposedly said or thinks. (You did accidentally make one good point: Fear sells.)
Then again it is very clear from the way you “write” that you are many years removed from whatever basic science class you may have been forced to struggle through painfully, so reading what science has to say on this is not an option for you. I suggest you stay in the shallow end and let the big kids talk climate change, m’kay?
Yeah. Blogs keeping records of what the liberal press and ‘news’ magazines publish should be discounted out of hand. That makes sense. Good point. No, really.
Ignore the content and point to the link title. Wow.
After all, we have the UN fudging numbers in support of the AGW hoax now, and we all know how reliable the UN is… Or do you? Can you say ‘oil embargo’ money or ‘Kofi Annan’?
Those classes you attend must be great, teaching you to attack adults and try to demean them.
What grade will you be in next year?
You should have clicked the IMDB link – it shows how ignorance can make people accept false science.
You know – like anthropomorphic Gore-Bull Warming.
Just so you know, the article you linked mentions that ‘…there was no scientific consensus…’ in the ’70s about cooling.
Just like there is no real science about AGW today !
Look up the medieval warming period and the little ice age.
Now explain how man created those ‘climate changes’.
And as for Algore – you seem to want him to be ignored.
He is an idiot.
But he was smart enough to create a scam that got him a Nobel prize, an oscar and the attention of a lot of nitwits who bought into his falsified movie.
Nobody said he did not know how to make money.
Now you” big kids” (middle school?) can talk all you want.
But “m’kay” sounds pretty childish, so as you grow up, perhaps you could lose that one.
And the visor on your baseball cap is supposed to be in front
I asked for some scientific evidence regarding the “dozens of scientific inaccuracies” as well as for the idea that the “hockey stick” is a hoax. You, of course, failed to do this because you cannot–you were lying, as usual. Now add to the pile a request for evidence that the United Nations is part of the scam. Nope; you can’t answer that one either, except with another smokescreen.
I did not ignore anything. I read the blog post you linked and it’s old, tired garbage, as the New Scientist bit explains in terms even you might understand.
The Internet Movie Database, while a fine source of certain kinds of info, is not a science site. In fact, it specializes in cataloging FICTION.
“Just so you know, the article you linked mentions that ‘…there was no scientific consensus…’ in the ’70s about cooling.”
Yes, I am aware of that.
“Just like there is no real science about AGW today !”
Wrong. Two vastly different things. You might as well be saying, “there was no evidence for a flat Earth in Bible times, just as there’s no evidence for a spherical one now!”
“Look up the medieval warming period and the little ice age. Now explain how man created those ‘climate changes’.”
Your “understanding” here is really quite primitive. No one has ever claimed that *all* climate change is caused by human activity. Got that? *NOT ALL* climate change. Think. Gray. Areas. If. You. Can.
These people are voting and having children–take your pick as to which is worse.