Skip to comments.Climate theology and its exponents
Posted on 04/03/2006 7:47:16 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
"There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," begins the April 28, 1975, Newsweek article reprinted today on the opposite page. But this wasn't a prediction of global warming. A new Ice Age worried Newsweek and its reporter, Peter Gwynne.
Future scenarios of widespread devastation, famine and starvation loomed because the Earth was getting cooler. "[T]he present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average," Mr. Gwynne wrote. The scientific community was abuzz with fear. Melting the ice caps or diverting Arctic rivers to warm the globe were proposed.
It never amounted to anything.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
The science is settled. Well at least until mother nature changes her mind.
"Remember, the science is settled. There is no disagreement."
Would that be good fat or bad fat or
good eggs or bad eggs
good veggie's or bad veggies
good oil or bad oil
good fast food or bad fast food
Only an idiot or liberal would make a comment that there is no disagreement on science.
||If they'd only ask, I could tell them who's behind all this climate-change panic...|
"We'll call it The Alan Parsons Project!"
Everynight I pray for Global Warming. (I think it's beginning to work.)
But that would be difficult to do.
Zacarias Moussaoui stated it perfectly. "It is ok to lie for the Jihad" The Environmentalists and Global Warming advocates understand this perfectly and use all in their power to advance the Global Warming Jihad.
I heard on the TV today that even 1 drink a day can increase a woman's chances for breast cancer significantly, while other reports state that 1 drink a day is helpful in prevention of a myriad of other ills.
I think that the science is pretty settled that temperatures worldwide are slowly increasing but as to the cause and how (if even possible or desired) to reverse the trend is far from settled science.
"At an international symposium convened by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory last October, the consensus answer was, "Yes, but not for at least another five thousand years." While that sounds like a simple reprieve, the issue of what the geologic record of past climate can tell us about the future remains both complicated and contentious."
The initial comment was directed at papers published during the 1970s that predicted a significant global cooling trend leading to the next glacial period.
The frustrating thing is that the media today has had a full court press on global warming initiatives. The articles say a 'minority' of scientists do not think this is a huge problem. They have been disproved. So say the media. The problem there is now the enviros will have their way thus bringing socialism even closer to our nation and stopping progress, nuclear power, newer oil reserves, and surely more and more taxes. It is a perfect Dem Party platform.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.