Progressives had to change the name because the science was no longer matching their crisis. The planet stopped warming for the past sixteen years.
There has been so many reasons to debate the theory of Global Warming.
For one thing, the polar bear population has increased significantly. However, you will find many stories arguing that fact. I go to the scientists without an agenda.
I try to find scientists that actually are concerned about the bears. Polar Bear Science
One recent story that has intrigued me involved the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore. He's been an environmental scientist for over thirty years. He testified to congress on the subject of global warming and completely debunked the theory.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” said Moore, who was testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight.
“If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”
The story was amazingly ignored by mainstream media. This should be big news.
Fox News did have the lifelong environmentalist on several of their shows. But ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC never mentioned Moore testifying. Interesting.
Why wouldn't they respect the educated opinion of a true environmentalist?
The science does not match the agenda. Barack Obama said in his SOTU address, "Climate Change is a fact!" Well, guess again, Mr. President. Not everyone sees it your way and much of the science conflicts with your opinion. Patrick Moore did not offer an opinion; he offered his findings based on scientific evidence.
In an article Patrick Moore wrote for the Wall Street Journal, he wrote, "Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas." The environmental scientist of more than thirty years left the organization he founded. 'Why I Left Greenpeace' by PATRICK MOORE
If I was a liberal, I would say the "haters" came out to attack the scientist. Usually when liberals say that, someone writes about the truth and they deem that person "a hater". You would think liberals would be intrigued by this totally different direction
given by one of their own - an environmentalist. In the case of Patrick Moore, haters did come out. He's been accused of turning his back on the environment to protect his business dealings.
Think about that. A man devotes his whole, working life to the environment. Then instead of coming out to prove global warming, he comes out to debunk it - to protect business interests. In a Wikipedia entry under the title 'Criticism', it accuses Moore to have "abruptly turned his back on the environmental movement" and accuses him of "being a mouthpiece for some of the very interests Greenpeace was founded to counter". It doesn't make sense to me. Besides, there already is a lot of evidence that solidifies Patrick Moore's statement about an 'extremist agenda'.
Just since Barack Obama has become president, a great number of loans have been given to special interest projects. It's no secret that our government lent billions to several "green" energy companies that failed miserably. Solyndra was just one of many. List Of Failed Green Energy Jobs & Companies – By Obama With a little investigation, one can easily find that many of these companies are connected to Obama campaign donors. If you look at the actual evidence, Patrick Moore's statement is far more believable than one man's opinion of Patrick Moore. Let's not forget about the "Climategate" scandal that came out in 2009.
Climate change is man-made alright. It's man-made in the heads of greedy people that profit from the scam. In an article that appeared in Forbes 11/23/2011, journalist, James Taylor wrote about the 5000+ emails that were discovered:
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."
Seems to coincide exactly with what Environmentalist, Patrick Moore said about Greenpeace.
No comments:
Post a Comment