Al Gore's Fatwa against the scientific truth

In a much publicized ABC special last night, Al Gore issued a fatwa against anybody who'd challenge his views on global warming: "There is no debate!"

But it's been a busy week in the scientific world regarding the inconvenient truth about global warming:

1. MIT's Inconvenient Scientist is an article from the Boston Globe where Richard Lindzen, meteorology professor at MIT expresses heresies such as: "We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change. The Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940. The evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why"
2. Another MIT researcher, Kerry Emanuel, explains how the increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes is not a real increase, but actually the result of improved observations in the satelite era, especially in the past 20-30 years. One quote: "A cyclone that hit Bangladesh in 1970 and killed up to 500,000 people is not even listed as a hurricane". Same thing should apply to most of this year tropical storms, which appeared in the middle of the Atlantic and disappeared in the middle of the Atlantic. 40 years ago, none of them would have been recorded. Read the full report here.
3. A National Geographic article presents the research of Tessa Hill, geologist at UC Davis, which shows that a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is methane, which is naturally released from undersea rock layers. They peaked several times in history, and they might peak now. It happened 16,000 years ago, and again 11,000 ago, and there were no gas-guzzling SUV back then.
4. Finally, let's remember a major danger of the 70s. "There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production, with serious political implications for every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. ... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." You might be surprised that this gloomy scenario refers to global cooling, and comes from a 1975 Newsweek cover story that helped give rise to congressional hearings that warned of an impending Ice Age that would result in worldwide famine and poverty. In the article, you can read how forcing a natural warming trend into a cooling trend (not that it would be possible) might have disastruos results.

Isn't democracy for everyone?

I heard today on the radio an argument that's pretty often used by liberals when they attack the US policies in the Middle East: that the Iraqis have been involved in clan warfare for thousands of years and that's all they know and democracy would never work for them.

Well... let's see... America has never been a democracy before 1776. For hundreds , maybe thousands of year, it had been a battlefield for tribal wars and foreign mercenaries who ravaged the lands. However, in about 10 years the world's most succesful democracy was established. France wasn't a democracy until the middle of last century. Spain had never been a democracy until the death of Franco in 1975, but after 3 years, a democratic governament was established. Israel has almost 5 thousands years of anarchy, lack of government and wars, heavily documented, until 1948, and it took a few years to become the first democracy in the Middle East. Russia was never a democracy until the early 1990s, and I think they are still building it.

So, as you see, each people had its own time to switch to democracy. What the liberal think is that some peoples are not worthy of a democratic rule, and they should never been democratized. It's one of their basic philosophies, that you must keep your minions feeling inferior, so you can rule over them. Happens here with the minorities, happens anywhere in the world.

Who killed the electric car?

According to a former GM engineer who designed it, it was reality. And not, as liberal conspiracy theorists claim in a recent movie, the big bad oil companies. You can read the full editorial from USA Today, but here is Gary Witzenburg summing it up:

Widespread acceptance of battery-powered EVs will not happen until someone develops battery technology competitive with a tank of gas (or diesel) in every way. It must be absolutely safe, long-term durable, capable of operating reliably in extreme weather and temperatures, mass-producible at low cost, able to carry comparable energy in a package of comparable size and weight, and able to be quickly recharged. None comes remotely close.

Ditto.

Reflections of an over-heated brain

It's 96 degrees here in Middletown. Only one thing is on my mind... Al Gore tells us that temperatures rose 0.8 degrees since the '60s (why then? because they've been declining before that, until, you know, the Big Industrial Revolution of the 1960s). I can only dream of the relief of a 95.2 temperature right now, which would be very possible if man wouldn't have destroyed our climate.

And I'm faced with another dilemma. At the current rate, July 2107 could be 98.4 degrees!!! So what do I do? Should I stop driving, and accept an economical slowdown of about 10-15%, leading to bankruptcies and recession, just so my grand-grand-grand-kids don't bake at that awful temperature?

The Liberals War on Science

Today, throngs of liberal activists are praying that the New Year temperature will establish a new record for this day, surpassing the previous record set in 1933. Do you really understand what that mean? Since according to the Liberal Bible, global temperatures are directly influenced by human activity and industrial production, it means that today, August 1st, 2006, we could reach the industrial and human levels of 1933! That's great news for the progress of our country!

We don't know what the weather will be like tomorrow, yet liberal activists know what it will be like in 100 years. Check the weather forecasts in the morning, and you won't know the exact temperatures at noon, except for a range of 5-10 degrees, yet Al Gore knows precisely, to a 1/2 degree, what the temperature will be in 2050. You wonder how they come up with their "precise numbers"? There are tons of climate models right now, each of them predicting a wide range of temperatures 50 years from now. Let's say we have Model 1, which predicts a temperature variation of -2 to 0 degrees. Model 2, with -1.5 to 1.5 and Model 3, with -2 to 3. Liberals will obviously pick model 3, and announce its upper margin of +3 degrees as scientific proof of global warming. And New York Times tomorrow will have a big warning on the front page: Scientific Consensus Shows 3 Degrees Increase in 50 years.

What liberals will never look at is past information. We've had climate models since the '60s, and liberals have also picked the highest value in the highest model, while ignoring that actual temperature variations are somewhere in the middle of the predicted models. But they base all their science on "junk science", conspiracy theories and so on. They ignore and refuse to accept any kind of real scientific research. They are at war with real sciences like climatology, biology, medicine, chemistry, history, etc.

I'm planning to do a Grand Canyon trip in September, and I searched for some information on average temperatures for that area. Here's what I found as Hottest Temp of the Year:
1990: 119 F
1992: 115 F
1994: 116 F
2002: 115 F

We notice that for 12 years, it went down 4 degrees. If it continues like this, by 2025 the Canyon will freeze!! Shouldn't Al Gore, the Sierra Club and other extremists be worried about this??